






































■ 


CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN OPINION 


OF THE 


FRENCH REVOLUTION 


l BY 

S 

CHARLES DOWNER HAZEN, Ph. D. 

Professor of History, Smith College. 


> 

) 

) 

j ) 
» > ) 



BALTIMORE 

THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS 

1897 



Mono^raoh 














% 


Y 


Copyright, 1897, by The Johns Hopkins Press. 


By Traaaftf 

Jf. 4 W3 

THE FRIEDENWALD CO., PRINTERS. 
BALTIMORE. 



• • 
• • 
t • » 


















/ 




JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES 


Historical and Political Science 


HERBERT B. ADAMS, Editor 


History is past Politics and Politics present History— Freeman 


EXTRA VOLUME 

XVI 


> 

> > 
> » 
10 ) 

) 









CONTENTS. 


PART I. OPINION OF AMERICANS ABROAD. 

Introduction . ix 

Thomas Jefferson in France: 

First Impressions. i 

A Journey through France. io 

The Passing of the Notables . 21 

The Interlude . 26 

The States-jOeneral. 33 

Gouverneur Morris on the French Revolution : 

Morris’s Political Creed ■. 54 

France in the Spring of 1789 '64 

The Constituent Assembly ; Its Character. 72 

The Constituent Assembly ; Its Work. 82 

The Legislative Assembly.100 

The Convention ..112 

James Monroe on the French Revolution .. . 120 


PART II. OPINION OF AMERICANS AT HOME. 

First Movements of Public Opinion .139 

An Extraordinary Year—1793.164 

Democratic Societies.188 

Levelling Principles.209 

The Evidence of Contemporary Literature.219 

Sundry Side-lights.243 

The Growing Opposition and its Reasons.253 

Conclusion.278 




























TO 

MY FATHER 

WHOSE LIFE HAS BEEN MY GREAT ENCOURAGEMENT. 


I 



( 


PART I. 


OPINIONS OF AMERICANS ABROAD ON THE 
FRENCH REVOLUTION 


Jefferson Morris Monroe 










-1 














INTRODUCTION. 


In the closing quarter of the eighteenth century life 
moved swiftly in America as elsewhere. After a period of 
self-examination at once intense and profound, emerging in 
determined and confident effort, the people of this country 
succeeded in achieving their independence, only to be 
thrown at once into the maelstrom to which an imperfect 
and inconclusive development of the principle of nationality 
inevitably leads. Wrestling for another decade with the 
elements of disunion and anarchy inherent in the situation, 
they sought an issue from their troubles in the creation of 
a new constitution. No sooner was this accomplished than 
the regime thus erected was wrenched to its innermost core 
by a conflict, exceedingly bitter, of forces to some extent old 
but largely new. The young republic contended not only 
with ideas and sentiments of native historic growth and 
worth, but with certain new and very captivating ones that 
came, at least in their more striking and militant form, from 
that very Old World from which the New thought itself 
finally and completely free. A fierce ferment of discussion, 
occasioned not only by questions of American political and 
economic life proper, but also by the aspirations and efforts 
of another country, now broke out and filled the first decade 
of our national life with clamor and excitement. Party 
strife, which was, of course, inevitable under the new con¬ 
stitution, took on a color strangely foreign in character. 

“ The reason was,” as Colonel Higginson points out, “ that 
the French Revolution really drew a red-hot ploughshare 
through the history of America as well as through that of 
France. It not merely divided parties, but moulded them; 
gave them their demarcations, their watchwords and their 




X 


Introduction. 


bitterness. The home issues were for a time subordinate, 
collateral; the real party lines were established on the other 
side of the Atlantic.” 

I have attempted in this monograph to state the attitude 
of Americans toward these efforts of a foreign country that 
seemed so completely to eclipse their own problems in in¬ 
terest and significance. I have not attempted to write a 
history of party politics, to show how opinion worked itself 
out in acts, altering the life of the country. I have simply 
endeavored to show from the writings of the men of that 
time what that opinion was. 

The history of American Opinion of the French Revolu¬ 
tion falls naturally into two parts—the opinion of those 
who were in France at the time and who were consequently 
better informed than most of their fellow-countrymen, and 
the opinion of those who, remaining at home, were hardly 
a whit less absorbed by events passing in France, and who 
based their judgments upon whatever information they 
could get, good, bad or indifferent. This natural division 
has dictated the form of the present essay. These two 
kinds of opinion may be best studied separately, even 
though at the expense of some repetition, which, however, 
it is believed, is slight. 

I desire to express my sense of great personal obligation 
to Prof. John M. Vincent, of Johns Hopkins University, 
for kindness in proof-reading and for many valuable sug¬ 
gestions in construction. 


Northampton, September, 1897. 



THOMAS JEFFERSON IN FRANCE. 


FIRST IMPRESSIONS. 

Whoever would know the condition of "France toward the 
close of the Old Regime, and the trend of events at the ush¬ 
ering in of the New, would always do well to consult the 
writings of American diplomatists resident in that country 
after 1776, notably those of Thomas Jefferson and Gouver- 
neur Morris. Our earlier representatives abroad, Franklin 
and Adams and Jay, have naturally far less to contribute to 
the illumination of that period of French history. Coming 
events in this case did not seem to cast their shadows be¬ 
fore. This supremely momentous movement, followed with 
such absorbing interest by Jefferson and Morris, was cer¬ 
tainly not foreseen in even the dimmest outline by many 
of the most sagacious observers of the decade preceding. 
The most weatherwise divined no coming storm. ) Franklin 
arrived in France in December, 1776, was received with 
perfect furor by the society of Paris and Versailles, and 
enjoyed, during the nine years of his residence there, a 
most remarkable popularity. He seemed, as John Adams 
afterward said, to have a reputation “ more universal than 
that of Leibnitz or Newton, Frederick or Voltaire,” a 
testimony made all the stronger when Jefferson said, in 
1791, “ I can only, therefore, testify in general that there 
appeared to me more respect and veneration attached to 
the character of Dr. Franklin in France, than to that of any 
other person in the same country, foreign or native.” 

“ Benjamin Franklin,” says Mr. Parton, “ was the Ameri¬ 
can who discovered France.” But though he discovered 
France, he discovered no signs of a revolution germinating 
there. “ There is not a single expression known to us in 




2 


The French Revolution. 


any of Franklin’s letters or papers up to the time when he 
left France which shows that he expected any considerable 
change in the government of that country,” says a recent 
writer. 1 Franklin has left behind no description of the 
economic, moral and political conditions of France in the 
years immediately preceding the great convulsion. That 
there lay hid in those conditions the germs of a sweeping 
and violent change seems never to have occurred to him. 
To be sure, he never had occasion or inclination to probe 
very deeply beneath the surface of French' life. An old 
man at the time he entered upon his mission, far from en¬ 
joying good health, he made no journeys of importance 
through the country. Yet seeing a great deal of the politi¬ 
cal, literary, and scientific society of the capital, he would 
have caught whatever revolutionary premonitions were in 
the air and would almost certainly have recorded them. 
He was in France from 1776 to 1785. He enjoyed French 
society. Life as men lived it in France seemed to him full 
of fine pleasure and incitement, of which his pages are evi¬ 
dence, abounding, as they do, with praises of that people. 
He did not find them abnormally and disastrously organized, 
and when he sailed for home he carried with him, appa¬ 
rently, no presentiment of that eventful future that lay so 
near across their path way* 

Nor do we find any symptoms of an impending change 
in the writings of Jay or Adams. Adams, indeed, travelled 
across the country twice, in 1778 and 1780, but the obser¬ 
vations he made upon his journeys, being very frag¬ 
mentary and superficial, are of no value to the student of 
the Old Regime. In after years, in the light thrown upon 
French conditions by the Revolution, he recorded the im¬ 
pressions made upon him by the retreat of Madame du 
Barry and the palace of Madame de Pompadour. These 
remarks on morals, the position and manners of women, the 
importance of virtue as a foundation for society, are edify¬ 
ing, no doubt, but seem rather like afterthoughts. 


1 Hale. Franklin in France, II, 391. 






Thomas Jefferson in France. 


3 


r 

But in the writings of Jefferson and Morris we see our¬ 
selves swept along in the broad, deep current of an actual 
revolution. These were men of judgment, insight, and 
wide acquaintance with affairs. Trained in the suggestive 
school of American politics, absorbed in the practical opera¬ 
tion of government, with a keen sense for the fitness or 
weakness of institutions, and very observant, they were well 
qualified to be critics of Frenchmen, French institutions and 
conditions, French aspirations and struggles, as that coun¬ 
try was about to enter upon an experience that, at the out¬ 
set at least, seemed very familiar to Americans. 

Jefferson and Morris are conspicuous among that small 
band of men who have left us the impressions of spectators 
of the great Revolution rather than of players in it. From 
this fact that they were eye-witnesses who succeeded in 
large measure in holding themselves aloof from the conflict 
about them, arises the distinctive value of their testimony. 
Not that they succeeded in leaving a perfectly objective 
and impersonal portrayal of the rise and progress of this 
great movement. The times were against them in this, 
and so were their temperaments. But though now and 
then entering the lists themselves, they remained on the 
whole judicial and clearsighted observers, intent upon the 
spectacle before them. 

These men differed widely in most important essentials. 
The one was what was termed in the parlance of the day a 
“ philosopher,” an advanced thinker along new lines, an 
undoubted doctrinaire, an optimist, enamored of democracy 
with a love that did not pass. The other was first and last 
a conservative by nature, a man to whom doctrinaires were 
abhorrent, especially when they left the quiet and obscurity 
of their closets to mingle in the fray of public life; a man 
who held that academicians were made for academies and 
not for parliaments; a man of vivacity and pungency and 
wit, rather Gallic than English, somewhat of a cynic, too. 
These men differed temperamentally. Their political ideas 
were also sharply at variance, and when their tempera- 


4 


The French Revolution. 


ments and their intellectual likings and dislikes interject 
themselves into their descriptions, we perceive in each a 
distinctly personal note. But this is not always the case, 
for while these men had strongly individual traits, they had 
traits in common as well. Both were intelligent, facile, 
acute, and penetrating. Both were strongly prejudiced 
men, though in inverse senses, but both were thoughtful 
and possessed discernment. Both were flexible, pliant, 
easily appreciative of different conditions than those to 
which they were accustomed at home. 

\ The description which they have left us of France in the 
most interesting period of her history is continuous from 
1784 to 1794, changing in 1789 by the passing of one of 
them from the scene and the entrance of the other upon it, 
with the consequent alteration of the note where the 
strictly impersonal one is dropped. 1 

In May, 1784, Congress appointed Thomas Jefferson to 
a foreign mission, to join Franklin and John Adams in 
Europe in negotiating treaties of commerce. Sailing from 
Boston in July he had a quick voyage and reached Paris, 
his destination, August 6. Soon after Dr. Franklin’s re¬ 
peated request to be relieved of his position was granted, 
and on the 10th of March, 1785, Jefferson was appointed 
to succeed him as Minister to France. Franklin had en¬ 
joyed a popularity in France probably unparalleled in 
the history of diplomacy. He had made America fashion- 


1 In the preparation of this chapter I have used both Washing¬ 
ton’s and Ford’s editions of Jefferson’s works. References are, 
however, to the former unless otherwise specified. Most unfor¬ 
tunately, and for no apparent reason, Mr. Ford’s edition, at least 
so far as it deals with the period treated here, 1785-1789, is far less 
complete than the one brought out forty years ago. Of the sixty 
letters I have had occasion to use, forty-five are to be found in 
Washington and are not in Ford, twelve are in both, and three 
only are in the latter that are not in the former. Of the forty-five, 
many are of the utmost importance, as for instance more than a 
dozen official dispatches to John Jay, besides letters to Wash¬ 
ington, Adams, Monroe, Lafayette, and Paine. That the later col¬ 
lection should be much less satisfactory than the earlier occasions 
surprise and regret. 



Thomas Jefferson in France. 


5 


able at this center of fashion, and his country reaped the 
benefit of his personal prestige. Jefferson was launched 
upon this new sea as the friend of the great Franklin and 
as the author of the Declaration of Independence, passports 
that quickly secured the favor of the French. He still 
further ingratiated himself with them by improving the 
occasion of Franklin’s departure to make a neat epigram 
quite in the national taste. By the publication of his Notes 
on Virginia he caused the philosophers of the French capi¬ 
tal to speedily recognize him as one of their own guild. 
The trans-Atlantic scholar and statesman appeared quite 
worthy of their esteem, his temper of mind commending 
itself to them as being essentially French. Appearing in 
France at the time its writers and thinkers were so zealously 
devising schemes of political and social regeneration, he 
was soon recognized as a master of the art, a “ connoisseur 
en revolutions.” “ He had acted one of the most prominent, 
as well as one of the most showy civic parts in the great 
trans-Atlantic drama,” says his biographer. “ He had pre¬ 
ceded the French patriots in their present class of ideas. 
He had acted a high part where they were only commen¬ 
cing to speculate. He had reported the Declaration of Im¬ 
pendence itself, and was generally supposed to be its 
author. He had overthrown and reconstructed the legal 
systems of a chief member of the confederacy. He had 
seen the practical workings of his labors. He was pro¬ 
foundly versed in the theories of government. With the 
same knowledge of the ancient ones possessed by the best 
educated Frenchman, he was far more deeply read in the 
legal and constitutional system and precedents of England 
than any man who could be found in France. ... In re¬ 
spect to American systems there was, of course, no one 
who could pretend to vie in knowledge with this actual 
builder of those systems. And it was to England and 
America alone that the French patriotic party looked for 
precedents and for examples.” 1 




1 Randall. Life of Jefferson, I, 420-421. 



6 


The French Revolution . 


Jefferson soon found himself on very good terms with 
the Government. His home became the rendezvous of that 
class of French reformers of whom Lafayette was a type, 
and who were soon to have their day. Touching the life 
of the country at many points, the criticisms that he soon 
began to make upon the social and political phenomena 
before him are always interesting, and possess no slight 
importance. 1 

From the beginning his criticisms assumed a tone of 
sharpness and distinctness that they never lost. His obser¬ 
vations on the politics and society and morals of France 
are generally thoughtful and appreciative, but are, as a rule, 
unfavorable. He finds the social life graceful, attractive, 
polished, interesting, but after all essentially corrupt. He 
rejoices in the intellectual illumination, yet he finds the 
notion of the relative inferiority of other nations grossly 
exaggerated, even America being not more than half a 
dozen years behind this center of light in the things of the 
intellect. Though he apparently found life extremely 
pleasant in Paris, never for a moment was he dazzled. 
From the beginning to the end of his stay abroad he con¬ 
trasts France with America, unfavorably to the former, be 
it in the domain of politics, or religion, or economics, or 
education, or social integrity. All this may be abundantly 
shown by extracts from his correspondence. 

For the governments of Europe, Jefferson expresses, 
from first to last, the most extreme aversion. Those at 
home who in 1787 mentioned the desirable features of a 
royal government as a refuge for the distracted thirteen 

1 “ The residence of Jefferson in Europe is one of the most curious 
portions of his life, less on account of what he did than of what 
he saw and thought. ... It was in Paris he learned to abhor the 
whole social organization of Europe and everything then apper¬ 
taining to it still existing in America; it was in Paris that he 
learned to hate the power both of the aristocracy and clergy, 
which till then he had opposed without any irritation.”—De Witt. 
Jefferson and the American Democracy. Translated by R. S. H. 
Church. 123-124. 



Thomas Jefferson in France . 


7 


states were advised “ to read the fable of the frogs who 
elected Jupiter for a king. If that does not put them to 
right, send them to Europe to see something of the trap¬ 
pings of monarchy, and I will undertake that every man 
shall go back thoroughly cured. If all the evils which can 
arise among us, from the republican form of our govern¬ 
ment, from this day to the day of judgment, could be put 
into a scale against what this country suffers from its 
monarchical form in a week, or England in a month, the 
latter would preponderate. Consider the contents of the 
Red Book in England, or the Almanac Royale of France, 
and say what a people gain by monarchy. No race of 
kings has ever presented above one man of common sense 
in twenty generations. The best they can do is to leave 
things to their ministers; but what are their ministers but 
a committee badly chosen? If the king ever meddles it is 
to do harm.” 1 And again; “With all the defects of our 
constitution, whether general or particular, the comparison 
of our government with those of Europe is like a compari¬ 
son of heaven and hell. England, like the earth, may be 
allowed to take an intermediate station.” 2 Elsewhere, 
speaking of European governments in general, he says that 
“ under pretence of governing, they have divided their 
nations into two classes, wolves and sheep. I do not exag¬ 
gerate. This is a true picture of Europe.” 3 And again 
he compares these governments to the relation of kites to 
pigeons, and says that we ought “to besiege the throne 
of heaven with eternal prayers to extirpate from creation 
this class of human lions, tigers and mammoths called 
kings; from whom let him perish who does not say, ‘ Good 
Lord, deliver us.’ 

This is no uncertain sound. It is not the sober thought 
of a judge, but is rather the war-cry of the republican mili¬ 
tant. And we shall see that, despite the general baneful 
character of kingly government, Jefferson could say good 


1 Works, II, 220-221. 


2 Ibid. 249. 


3 Ibid. 100. 


4 Ibid. 253. 




8 


The French Revolution. 


things of it, and could earnestly advise a people who were 
“ ground to powder by the vices of the form of govern¬ 
ment/' 1 whereby out of a population “ of twenty millions 
of people supposed to be in France . . . there are nineteen 
millions more wretched, more accursed in every circum¬ 
stance of human existence, than the most conspicuously 
wretched individual of the whole United States," 2 to put 
up with that form longer, to change it only slowly by 
breathing a new spirit into it. Jefferson never ceased to 
hurl anathema against this odious form of government, 
but he never showed clearly by any exposition of the 
abuses of French life a necessary and causal connection 
between the former and the latter, and he found it perfectly 
possible and apparently easy to praise this corrupt rule in 
many instances, and to extenuate it and plead for extreme 
moderation in altering it, acts little in harmony with the 
vehemence of his denunciations. 

Writing to Mr. Bellini, soon after his arrival in Paris, 
Jefferson said: “But you are, perhaps, curious to know 
how this new scene has struck a savage of the mountains 
of America. Not advantageously, I assure you. I find 
the general fate of humanity here most deplorable. The 
truth of Voltaire’s observation offers itself perpetually, that 
every man here must be either the hammer or the anvil. It 
is a true picture of that country to which they say we shall 
pass hereafter, and where we are to see God and His angels 
in splendor, and crowds of the damned trampled under their 
feet. While the great mass of the people are thus suffering 
under physical and moral oppression, I have endeavored 
to examine more nearly the condition of the great; to ap¬ 
preciate the true value of the circumstances in their situa¬ 
tion which dazzle the bulk of spectators, and especially to 
compare it with that degree of happiness which is enjoyed 
in America by every class of people. Intrigues of love 
occupy the younger, and those of ambition the elder part 


1 Works, I, 394. 


2 Ibid. 394 - 395 - 




Thomas Jefferson in France . 9 

of the great. Conjugal love having no existence among 
them, domestic happiness, of which that is the basis, is 
utterly unknown. In lieu of this are substituted pursuits 
which nourish and invigorate all our bad passions, and 
which offer only moments of ecstasy amid days and 
months of restlessness and torment. Much, very much 
inferior, this, to the tranquil, permanent felicity with which 
domestic society in America blesses most of its inhabitants; 
leaving them to follow steadily those pursuits which health 
and reason approve, and rendering truly delicious the inter¬ 
vals of those pursuits . 1 In science the mass of the people 
are two centuries behind ours; their literati, half a dozen 
years before us. Books, really good, acquire just reputation 
in that time, and so become known to us, and communicate 
to us all their advances in knowledge. Is not this delay 
compensated by our being placed out of the reach of that 
swarm of nonsensical publications which issues daily from 
a thousand presses and perishes almost in the issuing ? 2 
With respect to what are termed polite manners, without 
sacrificing too much the sincerity of language, I would 
wish my countrymen to adopt just so much of European 
politeness as to be ready to make all those little sacrifices 
of self which really render European manners amiable, 
and relieve society from the disagreeable scenes to which 
rudeness often subjects it. Here it seems that a man might 
pass a life without encountering a single rudeness. In the 
pleasures of the table they are far before us, because with 
good taste they unite temperance. They do not terminate 

1 1, 444. See also the letter to Mrs. Trist, quoted above. “The 
domestic bonds here are absolutely done away, and where can their 
compensation be found? Perhaps they may catch some moments 
above the level of the ordinary tranquil joy we experience, but they 
are separated by long intervals during which all the passions are at 
sea without rudder or compass.” (Works I, 394-) 

2 See also his remarks in regard to sending boys to Europe to 
be educated. In everything but the languages they could do as 
well at William and Mary College as at any school in Europe. 

I, 467. 



10 


The French Revolution. 


the most sociable meals by transforming themselves into 
brutes. I have never yet seen a man drunk in France, 
even among the lowest of the people. Were I to proceed 
to tell you how much I enjoy their architecture, sculpture, 
painting, music, I should want words. It is in these arts 
they shine. The last of them particularly is an enjoyment, 
the deprivation of which, with us, cannot be appreciated.” 1 

Thus the French were superior to us only in the grace and 
polish of their social life and in their achievements in the 
fine arts. These no doubt are important, and yet with 
such a man as Jefferson they could never pass for essen¬ 
tials, they could never blind him to the fact that “ notwith¬ 
standing the finest soil upon earth, the finest climate under 
heaven, and a people of the most benevolent, the most gay 
and amiable character of which the human form is suscepti¬ 
ble,” France was “ loaded with misery by kings, nobles and 
priests, and by them alone.” 2 

That the Americans who were abroad at this time saw 
no portents of an impending catastrophe has been con¬ 
vincingly shown by Dr. Hale in his Franklin in France. 3 
A striking illustration of this is to be found in the descrip¬ 
tion Jefferson has left us of a trip he made through Southern 
France in the early summer of 1787, where even the faint 
tremors of coming change are not perceptible. 

A JOURNEY THROUGH FRANCE. 

On the 22nd of February, 1787, the first Assembly of 
Notables was convened in Versailles and the Revolution had 
begun. Jefferson was present at its opening and followed 
its proceedings with keen interest. But a week later he set 
out upon a journey to the baths of Aix, in Provence, 
whither he had been advised by his physicians to go. 

Jefferson was away from Paris more than three months. 
This was the very year that Arthur Young was making the 


1 1 , 444 - 445 - 

3 Hale. Franklin in France, II, ch. xix. 


2 II, 7-8. 



Thomas Jefferson in France. 


11 


first of those memorable journeys for which he is held in 
such grateful remembrance by the students of history. Jef¬ 
ferson kept a journal of his trip, which has been published 
in the editions of his works. His account-book and several 
of his letters are also important as showing the impressions 
made upon him by the country through which he passed. 
The observations upon the conditions of France as recorded 
in the intervals of a leisurely journey, and apart from the 
influence of political considerations, are far more valuable as 
evidence than the general and sweeping utterances of the 
political doctrinaire which have been quoted above. Jef¬ 
ferson for a moment forgets the lurid character of the French 
government—of mammoths and kites and wolves, upon 
which he had spent much of his most energetic rhetoric, and 
his descriptions of France become less emphatic, less decla¬ 
matory, less saturated with his all-pervasive political theo¬ 
ries, also become more trustworthy as evidence, a better 
revelation of the conditions he portrays. Jefferson’s journey 
extended from the last of February to the middle of June, 
1787, and led him through Dijon, Lyons, Nismes, Arles, 
Aix, Marseilles, Toulon, Frejus, Turin, Milan, Pavia, Tor- 
tona, Novi, Genoa, Monaco, Nice, Aix and Marseilles; 
thence to Aix, Avignon, Pont du Gard, Nismes, Mont¬ 
pellier, Narbonne, along the canal of Languedoc, Toulouse, 
Bordeaux, Rochefort, Rochelle, Nantes, L’Orient, Tours, 
Orleans and Paris, “ upwards of a thousand leagues.” 1 

Jefferson’s notes are mostly on the agricultural conditions 
of the country through which he is travelling, and a few 
extracts from them will furnish the best information we 
have from any contemporaneous American source on the 
rural life and aspect of old France. 2 

Champagne, March 3. “ The plains are in corn, the hills 

1 Ford. Jefferson, IV, 386-7. Letter of Jefferson to Martha 
Jefferson, Marseilles, May 5, 1787, quoted from S. N. Randolph’s 
Domestic Life of T. Jefferson, 120. 

2 Memoranda taken on a journey from Paris into the southern 
parts of France, and of northern Italy, in the year 1787. IX, 
31 3 - 367 - 



12 


The French Revolution. 


in vineyards, but the wine is not good. There are a few 
apple trees, but none of any other kind, and no enclosures. 
No cattle, sheep, or swine; fine mules. 

“ Few■ chateaux; no farm houses, all the people being 
gathered in villages. Are they thus collected by that 
dogma of their religion which makes them believe that 
to keep the Creator in good humor with his own works 
they must mumble a mass every day? Certain it is that they 
are less happy and less virtuous in villages than they would 
be insulated with their families on the grounds they culti¬ 
vate. The people are illy clothed. Perhaps they have put 
on their worst clothes at this moment, as it is raining. But 
I observe women and children carrying heavy burthens 
and laboring with the hoe. This is an unequivocal indica¬ 
tion of extreme poverty. Men, in a civilized country, never 
expose their wives and children to labor above their force 
and sex, as long as their own labor can protect them from 
it. I see few beggars. Probably this is the effect of a 
police.” 

Burgundy, March 4. “ All in corn. Some forest wood 

here and there; broom, whins and holly, and a few inclo¬ 
sures of quick hedge. Now and then a flock of sheep. 

“ The people are well clothed, but it is Sunday. They 
have the appearance of being well fed. . . Between Mai- 
son-neuve and Vitteaux the road leads through an avenue 
of trees, eight American miles long, in a right line. It is 
impossible to paint the ennui of this avenue.” 

Dijon.—“ The road in this part of the country is divided 
into portions of forty or fifty feet by stones, numbered, which 
mark the task of the laborers.” 

March 7 and 8.—From La Baraque to Chagny. “ The 
plains are in corn; the Cote in vines. . . . There is a good 
deal of forest. Some small herds of small cattle and sheep. 
Fine mules. ... A farmer of ten arpents has about three 
laborers engaged by the year. He pays four louis to a man 
and half as much to a woman, and feeds them. He kills 
one hog and salts it, which is all the meat used in the 


Thomas Jefferson in France. 13 

family during the year. Their ordinary food is bread and 
vegetables. At Pommard and Voulenay I observed them 
eating good wheat bread; at Meursault, rye. I asked the 
reason of this difference. They told me that the white 
wines fail in quality much oftener than the red and remain 
on hand. The farmer therefore cannot afford to feed his 
laborers as well. At Meursault only white wines are made, 
because there is too much stone for the red. On such 
slight circumstances depends the condition of man! ” 

March 9. From Chalons to Macon. “ Met a malefactor 
in the hands of one of the Marechausee; perhaps a dove in 
the talons of the hawk. The people begin now to be in 
separate establishments and not in villages. Houses are 
mostly covered with tile.” 

Beaujolois. “ This is the richest country I ever beheld. It 
is about ten or twelve leagues in length, and three or four 
or five in breadth; at least that part of it which is under the 
eye of the traveller . . . The whole is thick-set with farm 
houses, chateaux, and the Bastides of the inhabitants of 
Lyons. The people live separately and not in villages. 
The hill-sides are in vine and corn; the plains in corn and 
‘ pasture. The lands are farmed either for money or on 
half-stocks. The rents of the corn lands, farmed for money, 
are about ten or twelve livres the arpent. . . . When lands 
are rented on half-stocks, the cattle, sheep, etc., are fur¬ 
nished by the landlord. They are valued and must be left 
of equal value. The increase of these as well as the pro¬ 
duce of the farm is divided equally. These leases are only 
from year to year. They have a method of mixing beauti¬ 
fully the culture of vines, trees and corn. . . . The wages 
of a laboring man here are five louis; of a woman, one-half. 
The women do not work with the hoe; they only weed the 
vines, the corn, etc., and spin. ... I passed some time 
at the Chateau de Laye-Epinaye. Monsieur de Laye has a 
seignory of about five thousand arpents in pasture, corn, 
vines and wood. He has over this, as is usual, a certain 
jurisdiction, both criminal and civil. But this extends only 


14 


The French Revolution. 


to the first crude examination, which is before his judges. 
The subject is referred for final examination and decision 
to the regular judicatures of the country. The Seigneur is 
keeper of the peace on his domains. He is therefore sub¬ 
ject to the expenses of maintaining it. A criminal prose¬ 
cuted to sentence and execution costs M. de Laye about 
five thousand livres. This is so burdensome to the Seig¬ 
neurs that they are slack in criminal prosecutions—a 
good effect from a bad cause. Through all Champagne, 
Burgundy and Beaujolois the husbandry seems good, 
except that they manure too little. This proceeds from 
the shortness of their leases. The people of Burgundy 
and Beaujolois are well clothed and have the appearance 
of being well fed. But they experience all the oppressions 
which result from the nature of the general government 
and from that of their particular tenures, and of the seig- 
norial government to which they are subject. What a 
cruel reflection that a rich country cannot long be a free 
one.” 

Dauphine, March 15-18. “There are few chateaux in 
this province. The people, too, are mostly gathered into 
villages. There are, however, some scattering farm houses. 
These are made either of mud or of round stone and mud. 
They make inclosures also in both these ways. Day lab¬ 
orers receive sixteen or eighteen sous the day and feed 
themselves. Those by the year receive, men, three louis, 
women half that, and are fed. They rarely eat meat; a 
single hog salted being the year’s stock for the family. 
But they have plenty of cheese, eggs, potatoes and other 
vegetables, and walnut oil with their salad.” 

Languedoc, March 19-23. (Near Nismes.) “ Many 
separate farm houses, numbers of people in rags, and 
abundance of beggars.” 

St. Remis. “ A laboring man’s wages here are one hun¬ 
dred and fifty livres, a woman’s half, and fed. . . . There 
are some chateaux, many separate farm houses, good, and 
ornamental in the small way, so as to show that the tenant’s 


Thomas Jefferson in France . 15 

whole time is not occupied in procuring physical neces¬ 
saries.” 

Aix, March 25-28. “ The wages of a laboring man are 

one hundred and fifty livres the year, a woman’s sixty to 
sixty-six livres, and fed. Their bread is half wheat, half 
rye, made once in three or four weeks to prevent too great 
a consumption. In the morning they eat bread with an 
anchovy or an onion. Their dinner, in the middle of the 
day, is bread, soup and vegetables. Their supper the same. 
With their vegetables they have always oil and vinegar. 
The oil costs about eight sous the pound. They drink 
what is called piquette. This is made after the grapes are 
pressed, by pouring hot water on the pumice. On Sunday 
they have meat and wine.” 

On the way to Marseilles. “ The people are in separate 
establishments.” 

Toulon. “ The people are in separate establishments.” 

In Italy. Jefferson had reached Vercelli. “ The people 
of this country are ill-dressed in comparison with those of 
France, and there are more spots of uncultivated ground.” 

Frontignan, May 12. “A laboring man hires at 150 
livres the year and is fed and lodged; a woman at half as 
much. . . . More of the waste lands between Frontignan 
and Mirval are capable of culture; but it is a marshy coun¬ 
try, very subject to fever and ague and generally unhealthy. 
Thence arises, as is said, a want of hands.” 

Le Saumal. Travelling via the Languedoc Canal. “The 
barks which navigate it are seventy and eighty feet long, 
and seventeen or eighteen feet wide. They are drawn by 
one horse and worked by two hands, one of which is gen¬ 
erally a woman. The locks are mostly kept by women, 
but the necessary operations are much too laborious for 
them. The encroachment by the men on the offices proper 
for the women is a great derangement in the order of 
things. Men are shoemakers, tailors, upholsterers, stay- 
makers, mantua-makers, cooks, housekeepers, house- 
cleaners, bed-makers, they coeffe the ladies and bring them 


16 


The French Revolution. 


to bed; the women, therefore, to live, are obliged to under¬ 
take the offices which they abandon. They become por¬ 
ters, carters, reapers, sailors, lock-keepers, smiters on the 
anvil, cultivators of the earth, etc. Can we wonder if such 
of them as have a little beauty prefer easier courses to get 
their livelihood, as long as that beauty lasts?” 

Bordeaux, May 24. “ The farmers live on their farms. 

. . . They never hire laborers by the year [in the vine¬ 
yards]. The day wages for a man are thirty sous, a 
woman’s, fifteen sous, feeding themselves. The women 
make the bundles of sarment, weed, pull off the snails, tie 
the vines, and gather the grapes. During the vintage are 
paid high and fed well.” 

May 28 and 29. “ The country from Nantes to L’Orient 

is very hilly and poor, the soil grey; nearly half is waste, 
in furze and broom, among which is some poor grass. . . . 
The people are mostly in villages; they eat rye bread and 
are ragged. The villages announce a general poverty, as 
does every other appearance. Women smite on the anvil 
and work with the hoe, and even are yoked to labor.” 

Near Rennes. “ Some small separate houses, which 
seem to be the residence of laborers or very small farmers; 
the walls frequently of mud, and the roofs generally covered 
with slate.” 

Thus we see that Jefferson, after a long and leisurely 
trip through France, has left no very severe arraignment 
of the condition of the masses. He believed it would be 
better for them to live upon the farms rather than to be 
huddled together in villages, which is quite in harmony with 
the belief he always entertained that population should be 
scattered rather than greatly concentrated at a few points. 
But he finds numerous regions where this is the case. He 
believes the system of land tenure bad, owing to the short¬ 
ness of the leases, three, six, or nine years, whereas longer 
leases encourage the cultivator to greater exertions. 1 But, 


1 Arthur Young expressed the same thought much more vig¬ 
orously and picturesquely when he said, “ Give a man the secure 



Thomas Jefferson in France . 


IT 


though the condition of the agricultural class is better in 
this respect in England, * 1 it is worse in Italy. 2 France holds 
a sort of middle ground. 

He finds that the people seem to be, on the whole, well 
clothed and well fed. To be sure, they eat but little meat, 
but their diet, which is vegetable, he thinks quite as good. 
Jefferson’s testimony is quite as important for what he does 
not say as for what he does. Long before he left Paris he 
was indulging in his emphatic denunciations of monarchical 
and aristocratic government. <HIe was declaring that five 
hundred persons could scarcely be found in America so 
wretched as twenty-four million and a half in France^ Yet 
with this strong conviction of the inherent and unqualified 
badness of the government, and with this ready disposition 
to see its evil effects everywhere, we find the memoranda of 
this journey almost entirely free from condemnation. The 
picture that he paints is by no means black, though it may 
be rather sombre. Nowhere does he seem to find the condi¬ 
tion of the masses intolerable. On one occasion, indeed, 
he does say that though the people of Burgundy and 


possession of a*bleak rock and he will turn it into a garden; give 
him a nine years’ lease of a garden and he will convert it into a 
desert.”—Travels in France, Bohn, 1890, p. 54. 

1 Jefferson to John Page. Paris, May 4, 1786 (I, 549 ); “I re¬ 
turned but three or four days ago from a two months’ trip 
to England. I traversed that country much and own that town 
and country fell short of my expectations. Comparing it with 
this, I found a much greater proportion of barrens, a soil, in other 
parts, not naturally so good as this, not better cultivated, but 
better manured, and, therefore, more productive. This proceeds 
from the practice of long leases there and short ones here. The 
laboring people here are poorer than in England. They pay 
about one-half their produce in rent; the English, in general, 
about a third.” 

2 In the memoranda quoted above Jefferson says, speaking of 
Northern Italy: “The women here smite on the anvil and work 
with maul and spade. The people of this country are ill-dressed 
in comparison with those of France, and there are more spots of 
uncultivated ground (IX, 337). Leases here are mostly for nine 
years. ... A laboring man receives sixty livres and is fed and 
lodged.” (Ibid. 340.) 



18 


The French Revolution. 


Beaujolois are well clothed and have the appearance of be¬ 
ing well fed, yet “ they experience all the oppressions which 
result from the nature of the general government and from 
that of their particular tenures, and of the seignorial gov¬ 
ernment to which they are subject.'’ And he adds, “ What 
a cruel reflection, that a rich country cannot long be a free 
one!” And, again, on seeing a prisoner in the hands of a 
policeman, his humanitarianism rises to the occasion and 
he thinks that possibly he is a “ dove in the talons of a 
hawk.” 

But on the whole, Jefferson does not seem to have been 
moved by any great distress in the conditions of those 
whose lives he observed. There are none of those passion¬ 
ate outbreaks that one finds in Arthur Young’s record of 
his travels. “ The same wretched country continues to 
La Loge; the fields are scenes of pitiable management 
as the houses are of misery. Yet all this country 
highly improvable, if they knew what to do with it; the 
property, perhaps, of some of those glittering beings who 
figured in the procession the other day at Versailles. 
Heaven grant me patience while I see a country thus neg¬ 
lected, and forgive me the oaths I swear at the absence and 
ignorance of the possessors,” 1 and “ Oh! if I was the legis¬ 
lator of France for a day, I would make great lords skip 

• )) 2 
again. 

This cannot have arisen out of the fact that Jefferson was 
not passionate, for that he most certainly was; nor out of 
any self-imposed limits upon the matter to be inserted in 
his journal, for though that is devoted, to be sure, mainly 
to a description of the topography of France and the agri¬ 
cultural methods, particularly the culture of vines, yet he 
constantly deviates from so strict a path and speaks of 
landscapes, birds, views, and works of art. 3 It is hardly 


1 Young. Travels, 19. 2 Ibid. 71. 

3 Memoranda passim. See also letter to Comtesse de Tesse, II, 
131-132, and letter to his daughter written on this trip, Ford’s 
Jefferson, IV, 388. 



Thomas Jefferson in France . 


19 


conceivable that some references to the wretched condi- 
, tions of the French masses would not have crept into Jef¬ 
ferson’s writings had he been vividly impressed with their 
wretchedness. He was a man of quick sensibility, of lively 
humanitarian feelings, and yet he was not moved to indig¬ 
nation by what he saw. The upshot of the whole matter 
seems to be that Jefferson, though finding the lot of the 
average Frenchman a hard one, did not find it unusually 
hard. And such an opinion seems to be confirmed by a 
letter that he wrote to his friend Lafayette from Nice. 

“ In the great cities I go to see what travellers think 
alone worthy of being seen; but I make a job of it 
and generally gulp it all down in a day. On the other 
hand, I am never satiated with rambling through the fields 
and farms, examining the culture and cultivators, with a 
degree of curiosity which makes some take me for a fool, 
and others to be much wiser than I am. I have been 
pleased to find among the people a less degree of physical 
misery than I had expected. They are generally well 
clothed and have a plenty of food, not animal, indeed, but 
vegetable, which is just as wholesome. Perhaps they are 
overworked, the excess of the rent required by the land¬ 
lord obliging them to too many hours of labor in order to 
produce that and wherewith to feed and clothe themselves. 
The soil of Champagne and Burgundy 1 have found more 
universally good than I had expected, and as I could not 
help making a comparison with England, I found that com¬ 
parison more unfavorable to the latter than is generally 
admitted. The soil, the climate and the productions are 
superior to those of England, and the husbandry as good, 
except in one point, that of manure.” . . . [France should 
adopt the system of long leases.] . . . “ From the first 
olive fields of Pierrelatte to the orangeries of Hieres has 
been continued rapture to me. I have often wished for 
you. I think you have not made this journey. It is a 
pleasure you have to come, and an improvement you have 
to add to the many you have already made. It will be a 


20 


The French Revolution . 


great comfort to you to know, from your own inspection, 
the condition of all the provinces of your own country, and 
it will be interesting to them at some future day, to be 
known to you. This is perhaps the only moment of your 
life in which you can acquire that knowledge. And to do 
it most effectually you must be absolutely incognito; you 
must ferret the people out of their hovels as I have done, 
look into their kettles, eat their bread, loll on their beds 
under pretence of resting yourself, but in fact to find 
if they are soft. You will feel a sublime pleasure in the 
course of this investigation, and a sublimer one hereafter, 
when you shall be able to apply your knowledge to the 
softening of their beds or the throwing a morsel of meat 
into their kettle of vegetables.” 1 

The tender sentiment of the closing sentences would, no 
doubt, be justified in any land and time. 

This position is still further reinforced by the testimony 
of another American who happened to be in France at this 
time, Joel Barlow, of Connecticut, a liberal, who went to 
Europe in 1788 as the agent of a business enterprise, re¬ 
maining there a number of years and playing a unique part 
in the great Revolution. Barlow landed at Havre, June 26, 
1788, and reached Paris, July 3d. In his note-book, full 
for the first four months, he says, “ I do not find that ex¬ 
treme wretchedness and poverty among the lower class of 
people in France that I had been taught to expect.” 2 


1 II, 135-136. Nice, April 11, 1787. 

2 Life and Letters of Joel Barlow, by Charles Burr Todd, 75. 

The view given here of Jefferson’s opinion of French conditions 
does not seem to me to be especially modified by a very interesting 
letter written by Jefferson to his friend, the Reverend James 
Madison, and recently brought to light by Mr. Ford. The letter 
was written at Fontainebleau, October 28, 1785, and runs, in part, 
as follows: 

Dear Sir :—Seven o’clock and retired to my fireside; I have 
determined to enter into conversation with you. This is a village 
of about 5000 inhabitants when the court is not here, and 20,000 
when they are, occupying a valley through which runs a brook, 
and On each side of it a ridge of small mountains, most of which 
are naked rock. The King comes here in the fall always to hunt. 



Thomas Jefferson in France . 


21 


THE PASSING OF THE NOTABLES. 

Jefferson had delayed his departure for Southern France 
several days in order to be present at the opening of the 
Assembly of Notables, February 22, 1787. Early in Janu¬ 
ary he had notified the government at home that such an 
assembly was shortly to be called. “ This has not been 
done for one hundred and sixty years past. Of course it 


His court attend him, as do also the foreign diplomatic corps, 
but as this is not indispensably required, and my finances do not 
admit the expense of a continued residence here, I propose to 
come occasionally to attend the King’s levees, returning again to 
Paris, distant forty miles. This being the first trip, I set out yes¬ 
terday morning to take a view of the place. For this purpose I 
shaped my course towards the highest of the mountains in sight, 
to the top of which was about a league. As soon as I had got 
clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the 
same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to 
know the condition of the laboring poor, I entered into conver¬ 
sation with her, which began by enquiries for the path which would 
lead me into the mountain; and thence proceeded to enquiries 
into her vocation, condition and circumstances. She told me she 
was a day laborer at 8 sous, or 4d sterling, the day; that she had 
two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her 
house (which would consume the hire of 75 days); that often 
she could get no employment, and of course was without bread. 
As we had walked together near a mile, and she had so far served 
me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24 sous. She burst into 
tears of gratitude, which I could perceive was unfeigned, because 
she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before 
received so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the 
solitude of my walk, led me into a train of reflection on that un¬ 
equal division of property which occasions the numberless in¬ 
stances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and 
is to be observed all over Europe. The property of this country 
is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of 
from half a million guineas a year downwards. These employ the 
flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 
200 domestics not laboring. They employ also a great number of 
manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly, the class of laboring 
husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all 
classes—the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what 
could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are 
willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable 
portion of uncultivated lands? These lands are undisturbed only 
for the sake of the game. It should seem then that it must be 
because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places 




22 


The French Revolution. 


calls up all the attention of the people.” 1 The objects of 
the Assembly were unknown, though several are conjec¬ 
tured. “ But in truth nothing is known about it. This 
government practises secrecy so systematically that it never 
publishes its purposes or its proceedings sooner or more 
extensively than necessary.” 1 This was the chief topic of 
conversation in Paris for some time. 2 

“ This event, which will hardly excite any attention in 
America, is deemed here the most important one which has 
taken place in their civil line during the present century. 
Some promise their country great things from it; some 
nothing. Our friend de La Fayette was placed on the list 
originally. Afterwards his name disappeared, but finally 
was re-instated. This shows that his character here is not 
considered as an indifferent one, and that it excites agita¬ 
tion. His education in our school has thrown on him a 
very jealous eye from a court whose principles are the most 
absolute despotism. But I hope he has nearly passed this 
crisis. The King, who is a good man, is favorably dis¬ 
posed towards him, and he is supported by powerful family 
connections and by the public good will. He is the young¬ 
est man of the N-Qtables, except one whose office placed 
him on the list.” 3 


them above attention to the increase of their revenues by per¬ 
mitting these lands to be labored. I am conscious that an equal 
division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this 
enormous inequality, producing so much misery to the bulk of 
mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdi¬ 
viding property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand 
in hand with the natural affections of the human mind.” Jefferson 
goes on to discuss the methods for subdividing. He insists that 
provisions should be made so that “ as few as possible shall be 
without a little portion of land. The small landowners are the 
most precious part of a state.” The Nation, July 25, 1895. This 
letter, written earlier than most of those mentioned in the text, does 
not conflict with them in any essential matter, and is, after all, 
chiefly significant as showing the importance Jefferson attached to 
the wide diffusion of property in land. 

1 II, 91. Jan. 9, 1787. 

3 Ibid, 99. Jan. 16, 1787. 


2 Ibid, 95 - Jan. 14, 1787. 



Thomas Jeff or son in France. 


23 


Before leaving Paris, Jefferson wrote to Lafayette as 
follows: I am just now in the moment of my departure. 

... I wish you success in your meeting. I should form 
better hopes of it if it were divided into two houses, instead 
of seven. Keeping the good model of your neighboring 
country before your eyes, you may get on, step by step, 
towards a good constitution. Though that model is not 
perfect, yet, as it would unite more suffrages than any new 
one which could be proposed, it is better to make that the 
object. If every advance is to be purchased by filling the 
royal coffers with gold, it will be gold well employed. The 
King, who means so well, should be encouraged to repeat 
these assemblies. You see how we republicans are apt to 
preach when we get on politics. Adieu, my dear friend.” 1 
There, in the face of circumstances, the doctrinaire with¬ 
draws and the cautious statesman, willing to progress 
slowly, less eager for a complete and immediate overhauling 
of the entire state system, comes forward. A month later 
he writes in the same vein to Madame de Tesse: “ My jour¬ 
ney has given me leisure to reflect on the Assemblee des 
Notables. Under a good and young king, as the present, 
I think good may be made of it. I would have the deputies 
then, by all means, so conduct themselves as to encourage 
him to repeat the calls of the Assembly. Their first step 
should be to get themselves divided into two chambers 
instead of seven; the Noblesse and the Commons separately- 
The second to persuade the King, instead of choosing the 
deputies of the Commons himself, to summon those chosen 
by the people for the provincial administrations. The third, 
as the noblesse is too numerous to be all of the Assemblee, 
to obtain permission for that body to choose its own depu¬ 
ties. Two houses, so elected, would contain a mass of wis¬ 
dom which would make the people happy, and the King 
great; would place him in history where no other act can 
possibly place him. They would thus put themselves in the 


1 II, 131. Feb.. 28, 1787. 



24 


The French Revolution. 


track of the best guide they can follow; they would soon 
overtake it, become its guide in time, and lead to the whole¬ 
some modifications wanting in that model, and necessary to 
constitute a rational government. Should they attempt 
more than the established habits of the people are ripe for, 
they may lose all, and retard indefinitely the ultimate object 
of their aim. These, Madam, are my opinions; but I wish 
to know yours, which, I am sure, will be better.” 1 

Thus Jefferson thought that its possibilities for good were 
great if the Assembly should adopt a moderate instead of 
a radical policy, and should choose the best concrete model 
as a guide, rather than insist upon following out any purely 
experimental, though ideally more perfect scheme of its own 
devising. By the time Jefferson returned to Paris the 
Assembly had been dissolved and a change in the ministry 
had taken place. He was very favorably impressed with 
the achievements of this Assembly, both as being very 
worthy and desirable in themselves, and as preparing the 
way for a general and more complete reform. 

Writing to Washington, August 14, 1787, he says: “The 
Assemblee des Notables has been productive of much good 
in this country. The reformation of some of the most op¬ 
pressive laws has taken place and is taking place. The 
allotment of the state into subordinate governments, the 
administration of which is committed to persons chosen by 
the people, will work in time a very beneficial change in 
their constitution. The expense of the trappings of mon¬ 
archy, too, is lightening. Many of the useless officers, high 
and low, of the King, Queen and Princes, are struck off.” a 
But the cries for reform were not stilled by what had 
been accomplished by the Assembly of Notables. The 
struggle had indeed but just begun. Jefferson, on his 
return, seems for a moment to have been surprised that the 


* n, I33-I34- 

2 Ibid. 251. “ That of partitioning the country into a number of 

subordinate governments under the administration of Provincial 
Assemblies chosen by the people is a capital one.” II, 222. 



Thomas Jefferson in France. 25 

improvements that had already been effected had not quieted 
the rising commotion and been frankly accepted by all as 
a sufficient achievement for the present, a good basis for 
further reorganization to be brought about slowly as ripen¬ 
ing conditions might favor and permit. But he soon saw 
the reason for this uncertainty, this restlessness, and 
describes the succeeding quarrels between the Crown and 
Parliaments minutely. Jefferson, the political thinker, was 
a doctrinaire of the most radical type. Jefferson, the prac¬ 
tical statesman, confronting actual conditions, seeking a 
feasible issue, knew how to adapt and trim, if not suppress 
his theories quite easily. He viewed all the efforts of 
the progressive party with optimistic sympathy. Yet he 
rarely lost his judgment, could criticise unfavorably as well 
as favorably. He plainly had a sober estimate of the capac¬ 
ities of Frenchmen for larger political life, and believed that 
they should enjoy the extensive political rights that were 
their due only after some training in practical politics. And 
even the attempts of the government to be liberal he re¬ 
garded with something like open scorn. Speaking of the 
edict emancipating the Protestants, which was hailed as a 
triumph of enlightened legislation, he says, “ The long ex¬ 
pected edict of the Protestants at length appears here. It 
is an acknowledgment (hitherto withheld by the laws) that 
Protestants can beget children, and that they can die and 
be offensive unless buried. It does not give them permis¬ 
sion to think, to speak, or to worship. It enumerates the 
limitations to which they shall remain subject, and the 
burthens to which they shall continue to be unjustly ex¬ 
posed. What are we to think of the condition of the human 
mind in a country where such a wretched thing as this has 
thrown the state into convulsions, and how must we bless 
our own situation in a country, the most illiterate peasant 
of which is a Solon compared with the authors of this 
law.” 1 


1 II, 350. Feb. 2, 1788. 




4 



26 


The French Revolution. 


The establishment of the Provincial Assemblies, which 
embodied the principle of electors, was to be the instru¬ 
ment of national salvation, and would in time circumscribe 
the influence of the Crown and increase that of the people. 
But events soon took another turn. The Notables had 
accepted some of the propositions of the Crown, but had 
ignored others, including those which had formed the real 
reason for their summoning—the financial schemes, the 
plans for new taxes. Jefferson speaks rather admiringly 
of their skill in passing over these. u Though the minister 
who proposed these improvements seems to have meant 
them as the price of new supplies, the game has been so 
played as to secure the improvements to the nation with¬ 
out securing the price. The Notables spoke softly on the 
subject of the additional supplies.” 

THE INTERLUDE. 

But just because the Assembly spoke thus softly the agi¬ 
tation continued, and became more intense because concen¬ 
trated upon these objects alone. The contest henceforth 
was between different powers, but it was the same contest, 
drawn all the more sharply because side issues, confusing 
or palliating, had dropped away. The contest between the 
Crown and Parliament was on for several months to come. 
The immediate occasion of the outburst was the registration 
of new taxes demanded by the Crown. These were opposed, 
and in the end successfully, by the Parliament, though 
the old familiar and heroic methods of the Crown were 
resorted to to enforce its will. “ But to the delirium of joy 
which these improvements gave the nation, a strange reverse 
of temper Las suddenly succeeded.” 1 This was occasioned by 
the deficiencies in the revenue, which, as officially exposed, 
were frightful. The monarchy had evidently shown a disposi¬ 
tion to economize, a disposition that seemed soon to vanish. 
“ But expenses are still very inconsiderately incurred, and 


1 II, 222. 



Thomas Jefferson in France. 


27 


all reformation in that point despaired of. The public credit 
is affected; and such a spirit of discontent has arisen as has 
never been seen.” 1 “The constitutional reformations,” says 
Jefferson again, “ have gone on well, but those of expenses 
have made little progress. Some of the most obviously 
useless have, indeed, been lopped off, but the remainder is 
a heavy mass, difficult to be reduced. Despair has seized 
every mind, and they have passed from an extreme of joy 
to one of discontent.” 2 The Parliament refused to register 
the new taxes and was compelled by a lit de justice to do 
so, but only after having uttered the ominous word States- 
General. “ It is evident, I think,” says Jefferson, when he 
hears of this lit de justice , “ that a spirit of this country is 
advancing towards a revolution in their constitution. 
There are not wanting persons at the helm, friends to the 
progress of the spirit.” 3 “ Your nation is advancing to a 

change of constitution,” he writes again. “ The young 
desire it, the middle-aged are not averse, the old alone op¬ 
posed to it. They will die, the provincial assemblies will 
chalk out the plan, and the nation, ripening fast, will execute 
it.” 4 “The day before yesterday,” he writes, August 15, 
“ the Parliament House was surrounded by ten thousand 
people, who received them on their adjournment with accla¬ 
mations of joy, took out the horses of the principal speakers 
and drew their chariots themselves to their hotels.” 5 Agita¬ 
tion at once attained a degree of intensity greater than any 
hitherto known in the recent history of France, a faint 
foreshadowing of what was to come. “ From the sepa¬ 
ration of the Notables [May 25, 1787] to the present 
moment,” writes Jefferson, August 30, “ has been perhaps 
the most interesting interval ever known in this country. 
... In the meantime all tongues in Paris, (and in France, 
as it is said) have been let loose, and never was a license of 
speaking against the Government exercised in London more 
freely or more universally. Caricatures, placards, bons mots, 


1 II, 222. 

4 Ibid. 234-5. 


2 Ibid. 230-231. 


3 Ibid. 231. Aug. 6, 1787. 
5 Ibid. 255. Aug. 15, 1787. 



28 


The French Revolution. 


have been indulged in by all ranks of people, and I know 
of no well attested instance of a single punishment. For 
some time mobs of ten, twenty and thirty thousand people 
collected daily, surrounded the Parliament House, huzzaed 
the members; men entered the doors and examined into 
their conduct, took the horses out of the carriages of those 
who did well and drew them home. The Government 
thought it prudent to prevent these, drew some regulars 
into the neighborhood, multiplied the guards, had the streets 
constantly patrolled by strong parties, suspended privileged 
places, forbade clubs, etc. The mobs have ceased; perhaps 
that may be partly owing to the absence of Parliament. 
The Count d’Artois, sent to hold a bed of justice in the 
Cour des Aides, was hissed and hooted without reserve 
by the populace; the carriage of Madame de (I forget the 
name) in the Queen’s livery, was stopped by the populace, 
under a belief that it was Madame de Polignac, whom they 
would have insulted; the Queen going to the theatre at 
Versailles with Madame de Polignac was received with a 
general hiss. ' The King, long in the habit of drowning his 
cares in wine, plunges deeper and deeper. The Queen 
cries, but sins on. The Count d’Artois is detested, and 
Monsieur, the general favorite. The Archbishop of Thou- 
louse is made minister principal, a virtuous, patriotic and 
able character. ... I think that in the course of three 
months the royal authority has lost, and the rights of the 
nation gained as much ground by a revolution of public 
opinion only, as England gained in all her civil wars under 
the Stuarts. I rather believe, too, they will retain the 
ground gained because it is defended by the young and 
the middle-aged, in opposition to the old only. The first 
party increases, and the latter diminishes daily, from the 
course of nature.” 1 

And in writing to Jay, September 22, 1787, Jefferson re¬ 
affirms this opinion. He clearly saw that the contest which 


1 II, 257-259; see also 372. May 2, 1788. 



Thomas Jefferson in France. 


29 


resulted so disastrously to the Crown was not one between 
the Crown and the Parliament, but was in reality between 
the Crown and the people. That Parliament was only 
powerful in so far as it was the mouthpiece of the popular 
will was evident to him from the first. As soon as it 
ceased to hold that position it became as weak and selfish 
a factor in the struggle as the Crown. Speaking of the 
repeal of the stamp tax and the “ impost territorial,” and the 
substitution for them of the deux vingtiemes, he says: 
“ There can be no better proof of the revolution in the 
public opinion as to the powers of the monarch, and of the 
force, too, of that opinion. Six weeks ago we saw the 
King displaying the plenitude of his omnipotence, as 
hitherto conceived, to enforce these two acts. At this day 
he is forced to retract them by the public voice; for as to 
the opposition of the Parliament, that body is too little 
esteemed to produce this effect in any case where the public 
do not throw themselves into the same scale.” 1 

Jefferson evidently had a high opinion of the Archbishop 
of Toulouse when the latter became Chief Minister, an 
opinion only strengthened by the policy he adopted at 
the outset—a policy of peace, in itself a commendation in 
the eyes of Jefferson. “There has long been a division 
in the Council here, on the question of war and peace. 
Monsieur de Montmorin and Monsieur de Breteuil have 
been constantly for war. They are supported in this by 
the Queen. The King goes for nothing. He hunts one 
half the day, is drunk the other, and signs whatever he is 
bid. The Archbishop of Thoulouse desires peace. Though 
brought in by the Queen, he is opposed to her in this capi¬ 
tal object, which would produce an alliance with her 
brother. Whether the Archbishop will yield or not I know 
not. But an intrigue is already begun for ousting him 
from his place, and it is rather probable it will succeed. 
He is a good and patriotic minister for peace, and very cap- 


1 II, 278. Sept. 22, 1787. 



30 


The French Revolution . 


able in the Department of Finance. At least he is so in 
theory. I have heard his talents for execution censured.” 1 
Again: “ That he has imposing talents and patriotic dis¬ 
positions I think is certain. Good judges think him a 
theorist only, little acquainted with the details of business, 
and spoiling all his plans by a bungled execution. He 
may, perhaps, undergo a severe trial. His best actions 
are exciting against him a host of enemies, particularly the 
reduction of pensions, and reforms in other branches of 
economy. Some think the other ministers are willing he 
should stay in till he has effected this odious, yet necessary 
work, and that they will then make him the scape-goat of 
the transaction.” 2 That he favored peace, that he at¬ 
tempted to reduce the odious pension list and to introduce 
other reforms were elements decidedly in his favor in Jef¬ 
ferson’s opinion. “ In the meantime,” he says, “ The Prin¬ 
cipal goes on with a firm and patriotic spirit, in reforming 
the cruel abuses of the government, and preparing a new 
constitution which will give to the people as much liberty 
as they are capable of managing. This, I think, will be 
the glory of his administration. . . . Twelve or fifteen Pro¬ 
vincial Assemblies are already in action, and are going on 
well; and, I think, that though the nation suffers in reputa¬ 
tion, it will gain infinitely in happiness, under the present 
administration.” 3 

Jefferson caught the premonition of a coming crisis 4 in 
the spring of the following year when the edicts for the 
suppression of the Parliaments and the establishment of a 
Cour Pleniere were issued, and then registration extorted in a 
lit de justice, May, 1788. On the whole he seems to 
have approved these edicts, though he certainly did not 
approve everything they apparently involved. As issuing 
from the King alone they implied that with him alone 
rested all rights. Still Jefferson thought that they would, 
on the whole, prove beneficial and might be used to obtain 


1 II, 293-4. Oct. 8, 1787. 

3 Ibid. 316. Nov. 13, 1787. 


2 Ibid. 310-311. Nov. 3, 1787. 
4 Ibid. 382. May 4, 1788. 



Thomas Jefferson in France. 


31 


the larger freedom France desired. Speaking of our own 
new Constitution, he says, in writing to the Comte de 
Moustier: “ There are, indeed, some faults which revolted 
me a good deal in the first moment; but we must be con¬ 
tented to travel on towards perfection, step by step. We 
must be contented with the ground which this constitution 
will gain for us, and hope that a favorable moment will 
come for correcting what is amiss in it. I view in the 
same light the innovations making here. The new organi¬ 
zation of the judiciary department is undoubtedly for the 
better. The reformation of the criminal code is an im¬ 
mense step taken towards good. 1 The composition of the 
Plenary Court is indeed vicious in the extreme; but the 
basis of that court may be retained and its composition 
changed. Make of it a representative of the people, by 
composing it of members sent from the Provincial Assem¬ 
blies, and it becomes a valuable member of the Constitution. 
But it is said the court will not consent to do this; the court 
however has consented to call the States-General, who will 
consider the Plenary Court but as a canvas for them to 
work on. The public mind is manifestly advancing on the 
abusive prerogatives of their governors and bearing them 
down. No force in the government can withstand this in 
the long run. Courtiers had rather give up power than 
pleasures; they will barter, therefore, the usurped preroga¬ 
tives of the King, for the money of the people. This is 
the agent by which modern nations will recover their 


1 Speaking of this reform in the criminal law, Jefferson says: 
“ This reformation is unquestionably good and within the ordinary 
legislative powers of the Crown. That it should remain to be 
made at this day proves that the monarch is the last person in 
his kingdom who yields to the progress of philanthropy and civi¬ 
lization.” (May 23, 1788. II, 390.) 

Of the reorganization of the Judiciary Department by the insti¬ 
tution of subordinate jurisdictions, the taking from the Parlia¬ 
ments of all causes of less than 20,000 livres, the reduction of their 
number to about a fourth, he says, “ Even this would be a great 
improvement if it did not imply that the King is the only person in 
this nation who has any rights or any power.” II, 391. 



32 


The French Revolution. 


rights. I sincerely wish that in this country they may be 
contented with a peaceable and passive opposition. At 
this moment we are not sure of this, though as yet it is 
difficult to say what form the opposition will take.” 1 

Most of the innovations of this period Jefferson thought 
were decidedly for the better. “ Two only must be funda¬ 
mentally condemned: the abolishing, in so great a degree, 
of the Parliaments, and the substitution of so ill-composed 
a body as the cour pleniere. If the King has the power to 
do this the government of this country is a pure despotism. 
I think it is a pure despotism in theory, but moderated in 
practice by the respect which public opinion commands. 
But the nation repeats, after Montesquieu, that the different 
bodies of magistracy, of priests and nobles, are barriers 
between the King and the people. It would be easy to 
piove that these barriers can only appeal to public opinion, 
and that neither these bodies nor the people can. offer 
any legal check to the will of the monarch. But they are 
manifestly advancing fast to a constitution. Great progress 
is alreadv made. The Provincial Assemblies, which will 
be a very perfect representative of the people, will secure 
them a great deal against the power of the Crown. The 
confession lately made by the government that it cannot 
impose a new tax is a great thing; the convocation of the 
States-General, which cannot be avoided, will produce a 
National Assembly, meeting at certain epochs, possessing 
at first probably only a negative on the laws, but which 
will grow into the right of original legislation, and pre¬ 
scribing limits to the expenses of the King. These are 
improvements which will assuredly take place, and which 
will give an energy to the country they have never yet 
had. Much may be hoped from the States-General, be¬ 
cause the King’s dispositions are solidly good; he is capa¬ 
ble of great sacrifices; all he wants to induce him to do a 
thing is to be assured it will be for the good of the nation. 


1 II, 388-389. May 17, 1788. 



Thomas Jefferson in France, 


33 


He will probably believe what the States-General shall tell 
him, and will do it. It is supposed they will reduce the 
Parliament to a mere judiciary. I am in hopes all this 
will be effected without convulsions.” . . . “ The English 
papers have told the world, with their usual truth, that all 
here is civil war and confusion. There have been some 
riots, but as yet not a single life has been lost, according to 
the best evidence I have been able to collect.” 1 

THE STATES-GENERAL ONCE MORE. 

Jefferson was convinced that a great deal had been ac¬ 
complished for the good of France before the summoning 
of the States-General. The ministerial activity of Brienne 
received his warm approval. 2 The contest between the 
Crown and Parliament Jefferson characterized as “a con¬ 
test between the monarchical and aristocratical parts of the 
government, for a monopoly of despotism.” 3 * * * * 8 Good men 
take part with neither and should take part with neither. 
But they are simply using the necessities of these two 
powers to pursue their own object, the attainment of a 
fixed constitution. He was convinced that the King and 
his ministers would “ make great concessions to the peo¬ 
ple, rather than small ones to the Parliament.” It is inter¬ 
esting to see Jefferson’s moderation asserting its superiority 
in the midst of extreme political theories, to see how 
eagerly he grasped first at the Assembly of Notables, then 
at the Plenary Court, then at the States-General as fur¬ 
nishing the possible germ of a real national leg islature. 
What improvements had been made would ser ve well as 


1 II, 438 - 439 . 

2 II, 466. Aug. 12, 1788. To Carmichael: “ I applaud extremely the 

patriotic proceedings of the present ministry. Provincial Assemblies 

established, the States-General called, the right of taxing the nation 

without their consent abandoned, corvees abolished, torture abol¬ 

ished, the criminal code reformed, are facts which will do eternal 

honor to their administration in history.” 

8 II, 457 . 



34 


The French Revolution. 


the groundwork for future ones. What was necessary 
above all was peace. Nothing could be more unfortunate 
than a “ hasty and premature appeal to arms.” “ There is 
neither head nor body in the nation to promise a success¬ 
ful opposition to two hundred thousand regular troops. 
Some think the army could not be depended on by the 
government; but the breaking men to military discipline 
is breaking their spirits to principles of passive obedience. 
A firm but quiet opposition will be most likely to succeed.” 
This Jefferson thought would be the course of events. 
“This nation is rising from the dust,” and it was rising 
sc quietly and with such self-control and decorum that 
Jefferson thought it probable that it would, “ within two or 
three years, be in the enjoyment of a tolerably free consti¬ 
tution, and that without its having cost them a drop of 
blood; for none has yet been spilt, though the English 
papers have set the whole nation to cutting throats.” 

As the year 1788 wore on the States-General loomed 
larger in the horizon, bringing with it a perilous prelimi¬ 
nary question: Should there be one chamber, or two, or 
three? Should the Commons lead the way, or should they 
be skilfully checkmated? That the King would not stand 
in the way of the popular will Jefferson was convinced. 
“ He is the honestest man in the kingdom, and the most 
regular and economical. He has no foible which will enlist 
him against the good of his people; and whatever consti¬ 
tution will promote this he will befriend; but he will not 
befriend it obstinately; he has given repeated proof of a 
readiness to sacrifice his opinion to the wish of the na¬ 
tion.” 1 A greater possible danger may be found in the 
characters at court who may not all be of this conciliating 
nature, and from whom misrepresentations and evil influ¬ 
ences may arise, and also in the constituted authorities. 
The Parliament, for instance, when threatened by the royal 
authority, called loudly for the States-General, but when 


1 II, 469-70. 


/ 



Thomas Jefferson in France. 


35 


they saw a sort of peril to themselves in these very States, 
they demanded them “ in the form of 1614,” that is, wished 
them in a form that would not command the confidence 
of the people and that would consequently not be as dan¬ 
gerous. “ Here the cloven hoof begins to appear,” says 
Jefferson. 1 Later events seemed to show that the nobles 
and clergy would combine to oppose great reforms, and 
that consequently the people would be thrown into the 
scale of the King. “ This may end in liberty or despotism 
at his will,” says Jefferson. “ I think that both he and 
his ministry are in favor of liberty, and that having twenty- 
three millions and a half of the people on their side, they 
will call the other half million to order and show them that 
instead of having two-thirds of the nation they are but the 
forty-eighth.” 2 

In the succeeding months before the assembling of the 
States-General, in the discussion of all those questions then 
agitating Frenchmen, both with reference to its composi¬ 
tion and its ‘work, Jefferson showed at every point the same 
wise moderation. 

f 

yJJ the Etats-Gcneraux T _ wh en they assemble, do not 
aim at too much,” he says, “ they may begin a good con¬ 
stitution. There are three articles which they may easily 
obtain. 1. Their own meeting, periodically; 2, the exclu¬ 
sive right of taxation; 3, the right of registering laws and 
proposing amendments to them, as exercised now by the 
Parliaments. This last could be readily approved by the 
court, on account, of their hostility against the Parliaments, 
and would lead immediately to the origination of laws; the 
second has been already solemnly avowed by the King; 
and it is well understood there will be no opposition to 
the first. If they push at much more all may fail.” * 

“ If the States stop here for the present moment,” he 
says in another letter, “all will probably end well, and 
they may, in future sessions, obtain a suppression of lettres 


1 II, 485. Sept. 29, 1788. 2 Ibid. 490. Nov. 2, 1788. 

8 Ibid. 506-7. Nov. 18, 1788. See also other letters of this period. 






36 


The French Revolution. 


de cachet, a free press, a civil list, and other modifications 
of their government. But it is to be feared that an im¬ 
patience to rectify everything at once, which prevails in 
some minds, may terrify the court and lead them to appeal 
to force and to depend on that alone.” 1 “ If the States are 

prudent,” he says again, “ they will not aim at more than 
this at first, lest they should shock the dispositions of the 
court, and even alarm the public mind, which must be 
left to open itself by degrees to successive improvements. 
These will follow from the nature of things; how far they 
can proceed in the end, towards a thorough reformation 
of abuse, cannot be foreseen.” 2 

That France herself was not ready for greater reforms, 
feven for certain rights considered as elementary and indis¬ 
pensable in English-speaking countries, Jefferson clearly 
saw. Some, he said, would try to obtain a habeas corpus 
law and a free press. “ I doubt if the latter can be ob¬ 
tained yet, and as for the former I hardly think the nation 
itself ripe to accept it. Though they see the evils of lettres 
de cachet, they believe they do more good on the whole. 
They will think better in time.” 3 

r Jefferson once before had spoken with some bitterness 
of the backwardness of French political development. 
Writing to Mrs. Adams on the occasion of the meeting of 
the Notables of 1787, he had said: “The most remarkable 
effect of this convention, as yet, is the number of puns 
and bon-mots it has generated. I think were they all col¬ 
lected it would form a more voluminous work than the 
Encyclopedie. This occasion, more than anything I have 
seen, convinces me that this nation is incapable of any ser¬ 
ious effort but under the word of commandj The people 
at large view every object only as it may furnish puns and 
bon-mots; and I pronounce that a good punster would dis¬ 
arm the whole nation were they ever so seriously deter¬ 
mined to revolt. Indeed, Madam, they are gone when a 
measure so capable of doing good as the calling of the 


1 II, 5ii. 


2 Ibid. 535-6. Dec. 4, 1788. 


3 Ibid. 543-4; 548. 




Thomas Jefferson in France. 


37 


Notables is treated with so much ridicule; we may con¬ 
clude the nation desperate and in charity pray that heaven 
may send them good kings.” 1 2 Another American travel- 
ling at this time in France seemed to hold an equally j 
modest estimate of the political capacities of the French, 
and to hope they would treat the existing emergency in 
a spirit of moderation. “ If the States-General are com¬ 
posed of wise men,” writes Joel Barlow, in his diary, “ they 
will consider that the small remnant of ancient provincial 
rights and the present opinions of the people are the 
materials with which they have to work in forming a con¬ 
stitution. jAs the former are variant and the latter varia¬ 
ble, it will be necessary to conciliate and soften in order to 
impart to the people that portion of liberty which they can 
bear, and to impart to all alik(hs> Such wisdom and the 
necessary integrity to direct it is hardly to be expected in 
a court like this. presume there are not to be found five 
men in Europe who understand the nature of liberty and 
the theory of government so well as they are understood 
by five hundred men in Americ^ The friends to America 
in London and Paris are astonished at our conduct in 
adopting the New Constitution. They say we have given 
up all we contended for. They are as intemperate in their 
idea of liberty as we were in the year seventy-five/V 

[Though Jefferson seemed to think that, on the whole, 
France was pressing forward to a good constitution, yet, 
when he heard Frenchmen flattering themselves that it 
would be better than the English, he had his doubts. “ I 
think it will be better in some points, worse in others. It 
will be better in the article of representation, which will 
be more equal. It will be worse, as their situation obliges 
them to keep up the dangerous machine of a standing 
army. I doubt whether they will obtain_the trial by jury, 
because they are not sensible of its value.” 3 


1 Ford’s Jefferson, IV, 370-1. Feb. 22, 1787. 

2 Todd. Life and Letters of Joel Barlow, 83-84. Diary for Oct. 

3, 1788. 3 II, 557. Jan. 8, 1789. 



38 


The French Revolution. 


Though the outlook was, on the whole, encouraging, 
there were some possible difficulties in the situation. There 
was an economic danger. The winter 1788-1789 was un¬ 
precedentedly cold. For two months the thermometer 
varied between 18*4 below freezing (Reaumur) and zero . 1 
“We have had such a winter,” says Jefferson in a letter to 
Madame de Brehan, “ as makes me shiver yet whenever 
I think of it. All communications, almost, were cut off. 
Dinners and suppers were suppressed, and the money laid 
out in feeding and warming the poor, whose labors were 
suspended by the rigor of the season. Loaded carriages 
passed the Seine on the ice, and it was covered with thou¬ 
sands of people from morning to night, skating and sliding. 
Such sights were never seen before, and they continued tw r o 
months.” ' In his autobiography Jefferson speaks thus on 
this topic: “There came on a winter of such severe 
cold as was without example in the memory of man or 
in the written records of history. The mercury was at 
times 50° below the freezing point of Fahrenheit and 22° 
below that of Reaumur. All outdoor labor was sus¬ 
pended, and the poor, without the wages of labor, were, 
of course, without either bread or fuel. The government 
found its necessities aggravated by that of procuring im¬ 
mense quantities of firewood and of keeping great fires 
at all the cross streets, around which the people gathered 
in crowds to avoid perishing with cold. Bread, too, was 
to be bought, and distributed daily, gratis, until a relaxa¬ 
tion of the season should enable the people to work; and 
the slender stock of breadstuff had, for some time, threat¬ 
ened famine, and had raised that article to an enormous 
price/ So great indeed was the scarcity of bread, that, 
from the highest to the lowest citizen, the bakers were per¬ 
mitted to deal but a scanty allowance per head, even to 

1 II, 590. March 13, 1789. 2 II, 591. March 14, 1789. 

3 Jefferson says in one of his letters that supplies arriving from 
America reduced the price of flour at Bordeaux from 36 l. to 33 /. 
per barrel! II, 590. 



Thomas Jefferson in France. 


39 


those who paid for it; and in the cards of invitation to dine 
in the richest houses, the guest was notified to bring his 
own bread. To eke out the existence of the people, every 
person who had the means was called on for a weekly sub¬ 
scription, which the Cures collected, and employed in pro¬ 
viding messes for the nourishment of the poor, and vied 
with each other in devising such economical compositions 
of food as would subsist the greatest number with the 
smallest means.” 1 This distress, though somewhat re¬ 
lieved by shipments from the United States and the West 
Indian islands, continued till July. 

Another possible danger that Jefferson detected lay in 
the size of the coming Assembly. “ Twelve hundred per¬ 
sons of any rank and of any nation, when assembled to¬ 
gether, would with difficulty be prevented from tumult and 
confusion. But when they are to compose an assembly for 
which no rules of debate and proceeding have been yet 
formed, in whom no habits of order have been yet estab¬ 
lished, and to consist, moreover, of Frenchmen, among 
whom there are always more speakers than listeners, I con¬ 
fess to you I apprehend some danger. However, I still 
hope for the goodness of the body, and the coolness and 
collectedness of some of their leaders will keep them in 
the right way, and that this great Assembly will end 
happily.” 2 

The outlook, however, was on the whole encouraging. 
“ The: change in this country since you left it is such as 
you can form no idea of,” he wrote Col. Humphreys, 
March 18, 1789. “The frivolities of conversation have 
given way entirely to politics. Men, women and children 
talk nothing else; and all, you know, talk a great deal. 
The press groans with daily productions which, in point of 
boldness, make an Englishman stare, who hitherto has 
thought himself the boldest of men. A complete revolu¬ 
tion in this government has, within the space of two years 


1 Autobiography, I. 88-89. 


2 II, 580, 588; III, 8. 



40 


The French Revolution. 


(for it began with the Notables of 1 787), been effected 
merely by the force of public opinion, aided, indeed, by the 
want of money, which the dissipations of the court had 
brought on. And this revolution has not cost a single 
life, unless we charge to it a little riot lately in Bretagne, 
which began about the price of bread, became afterward 
political, and ended in the loss of four or five lives. . . . 
The writings published on this occasion are, some of them, 
very valuable; because, unfettered by the prejudices under 
which the English labor, they give a full scope to reason, 
and strike out truths as yet unperceived and unacknowl¬ 
edged on the other side the Channel. An Englishman doz¬ 
ing under a kind of half reformation is not excited to think 
by such gross absurdities as stare a Frenchman in the face 
wherever he looks, whether it be towards the throne or the 
altar. In fine, I believe this nation will, in the course of 
the present year, have as full a portion of liberty dealt out 
to them as the nation can bear at present, considering how 
uninformed the mass of their people is. This circumstance 
will prevent the immediate establishment of the trial by 
jury.” 1 Thus, as the time for the meeting of the States- 
General drew on, Jefferson was hopeful that a partial refor¬ 
mation of French conditions would be easily effected. He 
did not think that anything more than a limited ameliora¬ 
tion was possible or, considering the state of the public 
mind, desirable. 

Jefferson was present at the session of the 5th of May, 
and his description, though not so vivid as Gouverneur 
Morris’s, is interesting. “ The States-General were opened 
the day before yesterday. Viewing it as an opera it was 
imposing; as a scene of business the King’s speech was 
exactly what it should have been, and very well delivered. 
Not a word of the Chancellor’s was heard by anybody, so 
that, as yet, I have never heard a single guess at what it 
was about. Mr. Necker’s was as good as such a number 


1 III, 10-12. March 18, 1789. 



Thomas Jefferson in France. 


41 


of details would permit it to be. The picture of their re¬ 
sources was. consoling, and generally plausible. I could 
have wished him to have dwelt more on those great con¬ 
stitutional reformations, which his ‘ rapport au roy ’ had 
prepared us to expect. But they observe that these points 
were proper for the speech of the Chancellor. We are in 
hopes, therefore, they were in that speech, which, like the 
Revelations of St. John, were no revelations at all.” 1 

But there were difficulties arising. Necker had not sat¬ 
isfied the “ patriotic ” party because in his speech he had 
“ tripped too lightly over the great articles of constitutional 
reformation.” “ It is now, for the first time, that their revo¬ 
lution is likely to receive a serious check, and begins to 
wear a fearful appearance,” writes Jefferson to Jay. 2 He 
had hoped the majority of the Nobles would side with the 
Third Estate in their desire to form a single chamber, but 
this apparently was not to be. They would consent to 
equal taxation, but five-sixths of them were thought to be 
decidedly for voting by orders. “ Were this single ques¬ 
tion accommodated, I am of opinion there would not occur 
the least difficulty in the great and essential points of con¬ 
stitutional reformation.” “ But on this preliminary ques¬ 
tion,” he continues, “ the parties are so irreconcilable that it 
is impossible to foresee what issue it may have. The Tiers 
Etat, as constituting the nation, may propose to do the bus¬ 
iness of the nation either with or without the minorities in 
the Houses of Clergy and Nobles which side with them. . . 
In fine, it is but too possible, that between parties so ani¬ 
mated, the King may incline the balance as he pleases. 
Happy that he is an honest, unambitious man, who desires 
neither money nor power for himself, and that his most 
operative minister, though he has appeared to trim a little, 
is still, in the main, a friend to public liberty.” 

Jefferson’s letters for May and June are full of the excit¬ 
ing events of those weeks. He describes the insistence of 


1 III, 22-23. May 8, 1789. 


2 Ibid. 26. May 9, 1789. 



42 


The French Revolution . 


the Third Estate upon its position, its final assumption of 
the title and rights of a National Assembly, the 20th of 
June, the Tennis Court oath, the announcement of the 
Seance Royale, which he said was the work of a reactionary 
and desperate court which had succeeded in “ browbeat¬ 
ing” and intimidating “ M. Necker and shaking the King.” 
The noblesse were in triumph; the people in consternation. 
Jefferson’s own views at this crisis are given in his memoir. 
“ I was quite alarmed at this state of things. The soldiery 
had not yet indicated which side they should take, and 
that which they should support would be sure to prevail. 
I considered a successful reformation of government in 
France as insuring a general reformation through Europe, 
and the resurrection, to a new life, of their people, now 
ground to dust by the abuses of the governing powers. I 
was much acquainted with the leading patriots of the As¬ 
sembly. Being from a country which had successfully 
passed through a similar reformation, they were disposed to 
my acquaintance and had some confidence in me. I urged 
most strenuously an immediate compromise; to secure what 
the government was now ready to yield and to trust to 
future occasions for what might still be wanting/A 

He proposed a compromise to Lafayette and another 
member of the Third Estate, M. de Etienne. He writes 
to the latter, June 3, 1789: “After you quitted us yester¬ 
day evening we continued our conversation (Monsieur de 
Lafayette, Mr. Short and myself) on the subject of the diffi¬ 
culties which environ you. The desirable object being to 
secure the good which the King has offered, and to avoid 
the ill which seems to threaten, an idea was suggested, 
which, appearing to make an impression on Monsieur de 
La Fayette, I was encouraged to pursue it on my return to 
Paris, to put it into form and now to send it to you and him. 
It is this, that the King in a seance royale should come for¬ 
ward with a Charter of Rights in his hand, to be signed 
by himself and by every member of the Three Orders. This 


1 Autobiography, I, 93. 



Thomas Jefferson in France . 


43 


charter to contain the five great points which the Resultat 
of December offered, on the part of the King, the abolition 
of pecuniary privileges offered by the privileged orders, 
and the adoption of the national debt, and a grant of the 
sum of money asked from the nation. This last will be 
a cheap price for the preceding articles; and let the same 
act declare your immediate separation till the next anni¬ 
versary meeting. You will carry back to your constituents 
more good than ever was effected before without violence 
and you will stop exactly at the point where violence would 
otherwise begin. Time will be gained, the public mind will 
continue to ripen and to be informed, a basis of support 
may be prepared with the people themselves and expedients 
occur for gaining still something further at your next meet¬ 
ing, and for stopping again at the point of force. I have 
ventured to send to yourself and Monsieur de La Fayette a 
sketch of my ideas of what this act might contain, without 
endangering any dispute. But it is offered merely as a 
canvas for you to work on, if it be fit to work on at all. I 
know too little of the subject, and you know too much of 
it, to justify me in offering anything but a hint. . . . But 
after all, what excuse can I make, Sir, for the presumption? 
I have none but an unmeasurable love for your nation, 
and a painful anxiety lest despotism, after an unaccepted 
offer to bind its own hands, should seize you again with 
tenfold fury.” 1 

The charter that Jefferson framed was as follows: 

A Charter of Rights solemnly established by the King and 

Nation. 

i. The States-General shall assemble, uncalled, on the 
first day of November annually, and shall remain together 
so long as they shall see cause. They shall regulate their 
own elections and proceedings, and until they shall ordain 
otherwise, their elections shall be in the forms observed in 
the present year, and shall be triennial. 


1 III, 45-6. June 3, 1789. 



44 


The French Revolution. 


2. The States-General alone shall levy money on the 
nation and shall appropriate it. 

3. Laws shall be made by the States-General only, with 
the consent of the King. 

4. No person shall be restrained of his liberty, but by 
regular process from a court of justice, authorized by a 
general law (Except that a Noble may be imprisoned by 
order of a court of justice, on the prayer of twelve of his 
nearest relations). On complaint of an unlawful imprison¬ 
ment, to any judge whatever, he shall have the prisoner 
immediately brought before him, and shall discharge him, 
if his imprisonment be unlawful. The officer, in whose 
custody the prisoner is, shall obey the orders of the judge; 
and both judge and officer shall be responsible, civilly and 
criminally, for a failure of duty herein. 

5. The military shall be subordinate to the civil authority. 

6. Printers shall be liable to legal prosecution for print¬ 
ing and publishing false facts, injurious to the party prose¬ 
cuting; but they shall be under no other restraint. 

7. All pecuniary privileges and exemptions, enjoyed by 
any description of persons, are abolished, and all debts, 
already contracted by the King, are hereby made the debts 
of the nation, and the faith thereof is pledged for their pay¬ 
ment in due time. 

9. Eighty millions of livres are now granted to the King, 
to be raised by loan and reimbursed by the nation; and the 
taxes heretofore paid shall continue to be paid to the end 
of the present year, and no longer. 

10. The States-General shall now separate and meet 
again on the 1st day of November next. 

Done, on behalf of the whole nation, by the King and 
their representatives in the States-General, at Versailles, 
this-day of June, 1789. 

Signed by the King and by every member individually, 
and in his presence.” 1 


1 HI, 47 - 48 . 




Thomas Jefferson in France. 


45 


But the Revolution was not to be solved in this easy way. 
The deputies wrangled on for several days longer over the 
question of organization. “ The fate of the nation,” writes 
Jefferson, June 17, “ depends on the conduct of the King 
and his ministers; were they to side openly with the Com¬ 
mons, the revolution would be completed without a convul¬ 
sion, by the establishment of a constitution, tolerably free, 
and in which the distinction of Noble and Commoner would 
be suppressed. But this is scarcely possible. The King 
is honest and wishes the good of his people; but the expe¬ 
diency of an hereditary aristocracy is too difficult a problem 
for him. On the contrary, his prejudices, his habits and 
his connections decide him in his heart to support it.” 
The Queen and Princes are infatuated enough to hazard 
any measure, no matter how violent, to cut through the 
present difficulties, even civil war. But the ministry would 
prevent any such extreme. But the ministry itself does not 
inspire much confidence. “ It is a tremendous cloud, in¬ 
deed, which hovers over this nation, and he at the helm 
has neither the courage nor the skill necessary to weather 
it. Eloquence in a high degree, knowledge in matters of 
account and order, are distinguishing traits in his character. 
Ambition is his first passion, virtue his second. He has not 
discovered that sublime truth, that a bold, unequivocal vir¬ 
tue is the best handmaid even to ambition, and would carry 
him further, in the end, than the temporising, wavering pol¬ 
icy he pursues. His judgment is not of the first order, 
scarcely even of the second, his resolution frail, and upon 
the whole, it is rare to meet an instance of a person so 
much below the reputation he has obtained.” 1 The only 
hope lies in the Commons. “ The Commons have in their 
chamber almost all the talents of the nation; they are firm 
and bold, yet moderate. There is indeed among them a 
number of very hot-headed members; but those of most 
influence are cool, temperate and sagacious. Every step of 


1 HI, 52. 



46 


The French Revolution. 


this House has been marked with caution and wisdom. 
The Noblesse, on the contrary are absolutely out of their 
senses. They are so furious they can seldom debate at all. 
They have few men of moderate talents and not one of 
great, in the majority. Their proceedings have been very 
injudicious. The Clergy are waiting to profit by every 
incident to secure themselves, and have no other object in 

• yy 1 

viejy. 

Jefferson had a very high admiration for the policy of the 
Third Estate in those early discussions. They had shown, 
he thought, “ through every stage of these transactions a 
coolness, wisdom, and resolution to set fire to the four 
corners of the kingdom and to perish with it themselves, 
rather than to relinquish an iota from their plan of a total 
change of government,” 2 and he thought them perfectly 
capable of carrying out their well-conceived reforms. 
“ While there are some men among them of very superior 
abilities, the mass possess such a degree of good sense as 
enables them to decide well. I have always been afraid 
their numbers might lead to confusion. Twelve hundred 
men in one room are too many. I have still that fear. 
Another apprehension is that a majority cannot be induced 
to adopt the trial by jury; and I consider that as the only 
anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government 
can be held to the principles of its constitution.” s 

But tempestuous times were ahead. Jefferson describes 
the events that led up to the storming of the Bastille, the 
prayer of the National Assembly (“ a piece of masculine 
eloquence ”) to the King to order the removal of the troops 
which had been suspiciously massed about Paris and Ver¬ 
sailles; the King’s refusal and his remark that the deputies 
“ might remove themselves if they pleased, to Noyons or 
Soissons,” the dismissal of the Necker ministry, the falling 
of the King into the hands of men “ the principal among 


1 III, 58. June 18, 1789. 2 Ibid. 69. July 11, 1789. 

3 Ibid. 71. July 11, 1789. There are “ at least two thousand spec¬ 
tators attending their debates constantly.” III, 62. 



Thomas Jefferson in France . 


47 


whom had been noted through their lives for the Turkish 
despotism of their characters,” the attack upon the Bastille, 
and the murder of several prominent men, the sending of 
deputations from the States to the King, to which he gave 
only “ dry and hard answers,” the insistence of the Due de 
Liancourt in telling the King what had really happened, 
how all these things gradually made an impression upon 
him and the court, the King’s visit to the States, asking 
“ their interposition to re-establish order,” the appointment 
of Lafayette to be Commander-in-Chief of the Militia, the 
resignation of the new ministry and recall of Necker, and 
the visit of the King to Paris and his adoption of the tri¬ 
color cockade on the 17th of July. “About sixty thousand 
citizens of all forms and colors, armed with the muskets 
of the Bastille and Invalides, as far as they would go, the 
rest with pistols, swords, pikes, pruning hooks, scythes, 
etc., lined all the streets through which the procession 
passed, and, with the crowds of people in the streets, doors 
and windows saluted them [King and Assembly] every¬ 
where with cries of ‘ vive la nation,’ but not a single ‘ vive 
le roy ’ was heard. The King stopped at the Hotel de 
Ville. There Monsieur Bailly presented and put into his 
hat the popular cockade, and addressed him. The King 
being unprepared and unable to answer, Bailly went to him, 
gathered from him some scraps of sentences, and made out 
an answer which he delivered to the audience as from the 
King. On their return the popular cries were ‘ vive le roy 
et la nation.’ He was conducted by a Garde Bourgeoise 
to his palace at Versailles, and thus concluded such an 
amende honorable as no sovereign ever made and no people 
ever received.” 1 Tranquillity was in a fair way to be re¬ 
stored, and popular police bodies were taking the place of 
the old organization. “ But we cannot suppose this par¬ 
oxysm confined to Paris alone. The whole country must 
pass successively through it, and happy if they get through 
it as soon and as well as Paris has done.” 2 


1 III, 72-80. July 11, 1789. 


1 Ibid. 



48 


The French Revolution. 


A striking light is thrown on the overheated, suspicious 
state of the public mind at this time by another extract from 
the same letter. 

“I went yesterday to Versailles to satisfy myself what 
had passed there; for nothing can be believed but what one 
sees, or has from an eye-witness. They believe there still 
that three thousand people have fallen victims to the 
tumults of Paris. Mr. Short and myself have been every 
day among them, in order to be sure what was passing. We 
cannot find with certainty that anybody has been killed but 
the three before mentioned [Governor and Lieutenant-Gov¬ 
ernor of the Bastille and the Provost des Marchands], and 
those who fell in the assault or defense of the Bastille. How 
many of the garrison were killed nobody pretends to have 
ever heard. Of the assailants, accounts vary from six to 
six hundred. The most general belief is that there fell 
about thirty. There have been many reports of instanta¬ 
neous executions by the mob on such of their body as they 
caught in acts of theft or robbery. Some of these may, 
perhaps, be true. There was a severity of honesty ob¬ 
served, of which no example has been known. Bags of 
money offered on various occasions through fear or guilt 
have been uniformly refused by the mobs. The churches 
are now occupied in singing ‘ De profundis ’ and Requiems 
‘ for the repose of the souls of the brave and valiant citizens 
who have sealed with their blood the liberty of the nation.’ ” 

Though some difficulties were solved, others were not so 
easily. Jefferson hoped for no further outbreaks. “ Still 
there is such a leaven of fermentation remaining in the 
body of the people that acts of violence are always possible, 
and are quite unpunishable; there being, as yet, no judica¬ 
ture which can venture to act in any case, however small or 
great. The country is becoming more calm. The embar¬ 
rassments of the government for want of money are ex¬ 
treme. The loan of thirty millions, proposed by M. 
Necker, has not succeeded at all. No taxes are paid. A 
total stoppage of all payment to the creditors of the State 


Thomas Jefferson in France. 


49 


is possible any moment. These form a great mass in the 
city as well as country, and among the lower class of peo¬ 
ple too, who have been used to carry the little savings of 
their service into the public funds upon life rents of five, ten, 
twenty guineas a year, and many of whom have no other 
dependence for daily subsistence. A prodigious number of 
servants are now also thrown out of employ by domestic 
reforms rendered necessary by the late events. Add to 
this the want of bread, which is extreme. For several 
days past a considerable proportion of the people have been 
without bread altogether; for though the new harvest is 
begun, there is neither water nor wind to grind the grain. 
For some days past the people have besieged the doors of 
the bakers, scrambled with one another for bread, collected 
in squads all over the city, and need only some slight inci¬ 
dent to lead them to excesses which may end in nobody 
can tell what. The danger from the want of bread, how¬ 
ever, which is the most imminent, will certainly lessen in 
a few days. What turn that may take which arises from 
tfuiyvvant of money, is difficult to be foreseen.” 1 

/Three weeks later he writes: “ The danger of famine 
here has not ceased with a plentiful harvest. A new and 
unskilful administration has not got into the way of bring¬ 
ing regular supplies to the Capital. We are in danger of 
hourly insurrection for the want of bread, and an insurrec¬ 
tion once begun for that cause, may associate itself with 
those discontented for other causes and produce incalcu¬ 
lable events. But if the want of bread does not produce a 
commencement of disorder, I am of opinion the other dis¬ 
contents will be stiffed, and a good and free constitution 
established without opposition.” 2 

Soon after this Jefferson lefrfibr home, and the views of 
this eye-witness of the great drama ceased. Jefferson shows 
all through his correspondence that he favored moderation 
in the great crisis, though such moderation would effect a 
result neither one thing nor the other. 


1 III, 93-4. Aug. 27, 1789. 


2 Ibid. hi. Sept. 18, 1789. 



The French Revolution. 


50 

Jefferson inclined strongly toward the so-called Patriotic 
Party. These men he thought possessed not only the in¬ 
clination but the ability successfully to carry out the great 
reformation needed by France. Only they must be kept 
together. “ It has been a misfortune,” he says, “ that the 
King and aristocracy together have not been able to make 
a sufficient resistance to keep the patriots in a compact 
body.” In their differences of opinion lay their danger. 
When such differences became acute the leaders met at 
Jefferson’s house on one occasion and discussed their dis¬ 
agreements. There were present Lafayette, Duport, Bar- 
nave, Alexandre La Meth, Blacon, Mounier, Maubourg, 
and Dagout. “ They discussed together,” he says, in a 
letter dated September 19, 178^, “their points of difference 
for six hours, and in the course of discussion agreed on 
mutual sacrifices. The effect of this agreement has been 
considerably defeated by the subsequent proceedings of 
the Assembly, but I do not know that it has been through 
any infidelity of the leaders to the compromise they had 
agreed on.” This conference appears in Jefferson’s Auto¬ 
biography, composed thirty ye^rs later, in the following 
altered and glorified form: /The cloth being removed 
and wine set on the table after the American manner, the 
Marquis [de Lafayette] introduced the objects of the con¬ 
ference by summarily reminding them of the state of things 
in the Assembly, the course which the principles of the 
Constitution were taking, and the inevitable result, unless 
checked by more concord among the Patriots themselves. 
He observed that, although he also had his opinion, he 
was ready to sacrifice it to that of his brethren of the same 
cause; but that a common opinion must now be formed, 
or the Aristocracy would carry everything, and that what¬ 
ever they should now agree on, he, at the head of the 
National force, would maintain. The discussions began at 
the hour of four, and were continued until ten o’clock in 
the evening, during which time I was a silent witness to 
a coolness and candor of argument unusual in the con- 


Thomas Jefferson in France. 


51 


fiicts of political opinion; to a logical reasoning and chaste 
eloquence disfigured by no gaudy tinsel of rhetoric or 
declamation, and truly worthy of being placed in parallel 
with the finest dialogues of antiquity as handed to us by 
Xenophon, by Plato and Cicero. The result was that the 
King should have a suspensive veto on the laws, that the 
legislature should be composed of a single body only, and 
that to be chosen by the people. This Concordate decided 
the fate of the Constitution. The Patriots all rallied to 
the principles thus settled, carried every question agreeably 
to them, and reduced the Aristocracy to insignificance and 
impotence/’^ 

Such a quotation as this shows the comparative value¬ 
lessness of the Autobiography in reference to the events 
of the Revolution. Written long after the whole drama 
was over, its ring is not as true as that of the letters. 

This is shown in another instance. In his Autobiogra¬ 
phy Jefferson lays the whole responsibility of the Revolu¬ 
tion upon the Queen. The King, he says, would willingly 
have acquiesced in any scheme of government upon which 
the reformers could agree. “jjBut he had a Queen of abso¬ 
lute sway over his weak mind and timid virtue, and of a 
character the reverse of his in all points. This angel, as 
gaudily painted in the rhapsodies of Burke, with some 
smartness of fancy but no sound sense, was proud, dis¬ 
dainful of restraint, indignant of all obstacles to her will, 
eager in the pursuit of pleasure, and firm enough to hold to 
her desires or perish in their wreck. Her inordinate gamb¬ 
ling and dissipations, with those of the Count d’Artois and 
others of her clique, had been a sensible item in the exhaus¬ 
tion of the treasury, which called into action the reforming 
hand of the nation; and her opposition to it, her inflexible 
perverseness and dauntless spirit, led herself to the guillo¬ 
tine, drew the King on with her, and plunged the world 
into crimes and calamities which will forever stain the 


Autobiography, I, 105. 



52 


The French Revolution. 


pages of modern history. I have ever believed, that had 
there been no Queen, there would have been no revolution. 
No force would have been provoked, nor exercised. The* 
King would have gone hand in hand with the wisdom of 
his sounder counsellors, who, guided by the increased lights 
of the age, wished only, with the same pace, to advance 
the principles of their social constitution. The deed which 
closed the mortal course of these sovereigns, I shall neither 
approve nor condemn. ... I should not have voted with 
this portion of the legislature [the portion that decreed the 
death of Louis XVI]. I should have shut up the Queetl 
in a convent, putting harm out of her power, and placed 
the King in his station, investing him with limited powers, 
which, I verily believe, he would have honestly exercised. 
In this way no void would have been created, courting the 
usurpation of a military adventurer, nor occasion given for 
those enormities which demoralized the nations of the 
world, and destroyed and, is yet to destroy millions and 
millions of its inhabitants.” 1 

So tremendous an estimate of the Oueen is to be found 
nowhere in the contemporary letters of Jefferson. He 
says, indeed, in one place, “ the queen weeps, but sins on,” 
and in another, speaking of the reactionary intrigues before 
the Royal Session of June 23, that the Queen and the 
Princes are infatuated enough to hazard almost anything. 2 
But these are almost the only references to the Queen, and 
are not weighty enough to make her the cause of the great¬ 
est revolution of modern times, a cause that might have 
had no effect if it might only have been lodged behind 
convent walls. 

In short, Jefferson, before he left France, had no idea 
that a revolution of appalling violence was impending. In 
the outbreaks that had occurred before he left he saw no 
premonition of a most disastrous future. The murderers of 
Reveillon he denounced as “ the most abandoned banditti 
of Paris,” 3 and said that “ never was a riot more unpro- 


1 1, 101-102. 


2 HI, 51. 


3 iSid. 26. 



Thomas Jefferson in France. 


53 


voked and unpitied.” He spoke of Foulon as the victim of 
a “ bloodthirsty spirit,” 1 but he thought that none of these 
outbreaks had any professed connection with the great 
national reformation that was in the making. 

He sailed for home with the conviction that within a year 
one of the greatest of recorded revolutions would have 
been effected without bloodshed. And when the bloodshed 
began in grim earnest, he refused to see its significance, 
minimized its importance, and was reluctant to believe that 
a beautiful dream might become a hideous, repulsive mon¬ 
strosity. 



GOUVERNEUR MORRIS ON THE FRENCH 

REVOLUTION. 


MORRIS’S POLITICAL CREED. 

Gouverneur Morris belonged by birth to that strong and 
influential class of landholders who had, by force of wealth, 
intellect and superior abilities for leadership, directed the 
colonial affairs of New York. His father and grandfather 
had both been men of eminence in the life of the colony, 
and from them he early acquired those wholesome ideas 
and sturdy habits of thought and action characteristic of a 
self-respecting gentry, uncorrupted from above, cherishing 
freedom as its fairest ornament and most vital possession, 
and entertaining a high conception of its obligations to 
society and the state. 1 

These families, possessing in large measure the wealth, 
education, talents and social authority of the colony, justi¬ 
fied this position of commanding importance by their large 
public spirit and political sagacity. They were for the 
most part admirable types of manhood, well-intentioned, 
high-minded, deserving men of sterling worth. Fearless in 
the assertion of their rights as Englishmen, they were a 
most valuable element of vigor and energy in the colony, 
nourishing political freedom, encouraging education, 
strengthening the reign of law. Brought up in this circle, 
Morris while yet young became one of the leaders that 
swung New York into the revolutionary column, became 
the assistant and close friend of Washington, active in the 
war and influential in the convention that framed the Con- 


1 On the life of Gouverneur Morris see Roosevelt, Am. Statesmen 
Series, and Lodge, Historical and Political Essays. 




Morris on the French Revolution 


55 


stitution. Fashioned by these various influences, his ideas 
on politics and government had taken form in a political 
creed that was simple, virile, distinctly conservative, yet 
elastic, based upon experience and setting little store by 
theory as an active agent in the construction and recon¬ 
struction of those institutions by which men seek to realize 
the demands of life in common. 

He was, in a certain sense, an opportunist in politics. 
He believed that every nation should have that form of 
government which was adapted to the nature of the people 
and their historical development. '■Men,'' says he, “ like 
other animals, discover instinctively what is fit for them, 
and thus government becomes the result of character, 
manners and conditions.^ 

The notion that the light of experience or reason could 
reveal a single form of government, intrinsically the best, 
and suited to men of all conditions, never occurred to 
Morris, or if it did, certainly never found even a temporary 
lodgment in his mind. Government is not subject to 
a priori decisions, universally applicable. Of all human in¬ 
stitutions it is precisely the one which is most contingent 
upon ever-varying conditions. This conception would 
seem to be the only possible one, at once reasonable and 
natural. Yet it did not so appear to many ardent and 
gifted minds of the closing eighteenth century, and by 
holding it, Morris’s view of the French Revolution was 
determined. When he heard Frenchmen talking of the 
rights of man, he preferred to talk of the rights of French¬ 
men, Englishmen, Americans.. When he found them desir¬ 
ing an American constitution with the exception of a king 
instead of a president, he made the salient criticism that 
they were leaving out of consideration that they had not 
“ American citizens to support that constitution.” “ Who¬ 
ever, therefore, desires,” he said, “ to apply in the practical 
science of government those rules and forms which prevail 
and succeed in a foreign country, must fall into the same 
pedantry with our young scholars, just fresh from an uni- 


56 


The French Revolution. 


versity, who would fain bring everything to a Roman stan¬ 
dard. Different constitutions of government are necessary 
to the different societies on the face of this planet. The 
scientific tailor who would cut after Grecian or Chinese 
models would not have many customers either in London 
or Paris.” 1 

Morris was a thorough republican in America because 
he believed no other form of government would work as 
well here. The materials for a monarchy or aristocracy 
did not here exist. There were no gradations of rank, 
no permanent, historic class distinctions in America which 
are essential to any form of aristocratic government. Yet 
his fondness for a republican government was very tem¬ 
perate. Seeing its qualities, he was not blind to its defects. 
‘j In adopting a republican form of government,” he says, 
“ I not only took it as a man does his wife, for better, for 
worse, but what few men do with their wives, I took it 
knowing all its bad qualities.” 

But for France he believed in a monarchy with its accom¬ 
paniment of class distinctions, because monarchy was thor¬ 
oughly rooted in the history of that country, in her social 
and political institutions, in the sentiments of her people, 
and its abrupt and complete destruction would violently 
wrench the whole social fabric, the slow product of cen¬ 
turies of growth, dislocate all existing relations, and carry 
in its train injustice, turbulence and anarchy. He saw no 
magic in the word monarchy, no mystic spell in the word 
republic. The cynical and contemptuous Morris would 
never think of hurling such indiscriminate, wholesale an¬ 
athemas against a particular class of men as came scorch¬ 
ing from the flaming pen of the mild, humanitarian Jeffer¬ 
son, with his mammoths, kites and wolves in the guise of 
kings. Morris might indeed find this or that king worthy 
the mordant epithet, he did indeed criticise individual mon- 
archs as freely and unsparingly as he did democratic mobs, 


1 Diary and Letters, edited by Anne Cary Morris, I, 114. 



Morris on the French Revolution. 


57 


but it would be in every case because the character of the 


individual could be most accurately expressed in such 
terms, not because of his kingship. There was very little 
of the doctrinaire in him. It requires no violent effort of 
the imagination to see Jefferson a fanatic under favoring 
conditions. It would require such an effort to figure 



rris to ourselves in that role. 


^Morris has left us harsher criticisms of the King of 
France than has Jefferson, but he certainly did not regard 
the destruction of the monarchy and the monarch with the 
same indifference; an indifference so great that it may per¬ 
haps be considered mildly joyous approval. No special 
form or scheme seemed to Morris for a moment the last 
word in the science of government. No man could see 
more clearly that every form has the defects of its qualities. 
Every kind yet discovered among men has its potently bad 
features. “ The best is that which has the fewest faults, 
and the excellence of even that best depends more on its 
fitness for the nation where it is established than on intrin¬ 
sic perfection.” Circumstances, environment, the play of 
the active forces of the world are what give vitality and 



tone to every political prin 


Such, then, were his opinions on the general forms of gov¬ 
ernment, flexible, contingent, conditional. Here there is no 


trace of the system-maker. In regard to the basis of all gov¬ 


ernment, of whatever kind, his idea was equally clear and 
rational. That basis is property. The prosperity and power 
of a nation depend upon the amount of security given to it. 
Morris believed that in a republic, even more than else¬ 
where, property must be rendered impregnable behind 
entrenchments of legal rights and guarantees. Property 
not being secure, the cupidity of the masses is unchecked, 
lawlessness, violence, disregard of obligations may ensue, 
culminating in the weakening or overthrow of political in¬ 
stitutions and the loosening or snapping asunder of the 
bonds that hold society together. “ The engine,” says he, 
“ by which a giddy populace can be most easily brought to 


58 


The French Revolution. 


do mischief is their hatred of the rich.” This passage 
shows his attitude toward democracy. Of pure democracy 
never a word of praise, but only constant and deep-rooted 
distrust. In our constitutional convention he advocated a 
legislature consisting of two houses—a lower, democratic, 
and an upper, aristocratic, elected for life, 1 which should 
serve as a safeguard against the former. /He told M. de 
Lafayette, soon after reaching Paris, that he was opposed 
to democracy “ from regard to liberty.” He urged the 
French not to go too far in that direction in their new 
constitution. 2 Fie thought Mr. Jefferson’s ideas in many 
respects “ too democratical.” Later in life, after he had re¬ 
turned to America, and having allied himself with the Fed¬ 
eralists, with whom he naturally belonged, had seen that 
party go down before the very force he dreaded and the very 
leader whom he thought “ too democratical,” he expressed 
the same sentiment, though oftener and louder. He speaks 
of democracy, “ that disease of which all republics have 
perished except those which have been overturned by for¬ 
eign force.” Democracy is not a bad species of govern¬ 
ment, but it is “ no government at all, but in fact the death 
or dissolution of other systems, or the passage from one 
kind of government to another.” In Morris’s belief, in 
a purely democratic state the greed and envy of the poorer 
classes would exercise a dismal sway. H,£nce he came to be 
regarded in France as an aristocrat, and was taunted with 
the same at home. Morris was above everything else out¬ 
spoken—his critics said he was “ indiscreet.” He never 
hesitated to express to the republican party of France his 
perfect disbelief in the possibility or desirability of a suc¬ 
cessful realization of their doctrine. This of course was 
unwelcome, however salutary it might have proved. Here 
is to be found the cause of that description of him as a 
restless and annoying busybody, the plague of the “ good 
party,” pestering them with his hateful irony at the expense 


1 Letter of Madison to Sparks. 


2 Diary and Letters, I, 141. 




Morris on the French Revolution. 


59 


of their enthusiasms, which disfigures Randall’s Life of Jef¬ 
ferson. This appears in an even more irritating and unjus¬ 
tifiable way in the Life of Thomas Paine by Mr. Conway, 
whose genial biographical method seems to be the simple 
one of creating your hero b^ generating a suspicion that 
every one else is a rogue. /Because Morris did not join in 
the crusade against kings, here so loudly verbal, in France 
so actual and literal, he was called a monarchy man in the 
Senate of the United States, and his rumored death in Paris 
at the hands of the mob announced with much serenity and 
complacency by the republican press of this country.[ 

Morris’s political creed was essentially conservative. He 
had a marked aversion to breaking with the past, heedless 
of present conditions. History was to him the parent of 
political science. Experience and not pure reason was in 
his view the surest lamp unto the feet of men. “ Those 
who will not trust the experience of history,” he says, “are 
incapable of political knowledge.” He was opposed to all 
violent changes. He had therefore the profoundest distrust 
of and contempt for those political fanatics who would leap 
into the unseen future to grasp at imaginary Utopias. Prac¬ 
tical politics were to his mind no employment for dreamers. 
The wise statesman is not one who pursues vain philoso¬ 
phical abstractions, but one who tries patiently to form out 
of existing materials, honeycombed with defects, a state 
that shall be more perfect. Thus we shall see Morris hav¬ 
ing no sympathy with the showy and shallow generaliza¬ 
tions of those philosophers who, as Burke said, “ had never 
seen the state so much as in a picture/l] 


1 Such was Monroe’s criticism when the question of his confir¬ 
mation as Minister to France came up before the Senate. He is 
“ a monarchy man and not suitable to be employed by this coun¬ 
try, nor in France.” King’s Life and Correspondence of Rufus 
King, I, 421—a memorandum of Rufus King giving some of the 
objections to Morris raised in the Senate at the time of his appoint¬ 
ment. Washington, though himself having confidence in Morris’s 
qualifications for the difficult position, wrote him a fatherly letter 
containing a gentle warning against being too unconciliatory, and 
advised him to disarm opposition by careful conduct. 



60 


The French Revolution. 


Morris loved freedom, he was “ devotedly attached to 
the liberties of mankind,” yet he regarded progress toward 
liberty as necessarily slow and as demanding restrain', and 
sobriety from those who would enjoy it. Habits of politi¬ 
cal action are those most slowly acquired, must almost 
be bred into the race before they become safe supports of 
the state. Experience, experience alone is able to train 
men to an intelligent use of their rights. Morris thought 
that after France had once developed the principles of her 
new constitution, the lifetime of a generation would be re¬ 
quired to render the practice familiar. 

For the enjoyment of liberty we must firstjiave morals. 
Without them it is but “ an empty sound.” Religion is 
favorable to morals. Its destruction loosens the bonds of 
duty, and “ those of allegiance must ever be weak where 
there is a defect both of piety and morality.” Whatever 
Morris’s attitude towards morality and religion in the con¬ 
crete may have been, he undoubtedly believed in them as 
eminently conservative social and political forces, and their 
subversion in France appeared to him, as it did to many 
other Americans, as of all portents the most menacing . 1 

Such, in brief, were some of Morris’s general political 
beliefs. We have in them a key to many of his criticisms 
of the French Revolution. 

Such opinions were not popular among many of the more 


1 One of the objections to Morris at the time of his appoint¬ 
ment was that raised by Mr. Sherman of Connecticut, who 
was willing to “ allow that he possesses a sprightly mind, a ready 
apprehension, and that he is capable of writing a good letter and 
forming a good draft,” but who said that “ with regard to 
his moral character,” he considered him “ an irreligious and pro¬ 
fane man. He is no hypocrite and never pretended to have any 
religion. He makes religion the subject of ridicule and is pro¬ 
fane in his conversation. I do not think the public have as much 
security from such men as from godly and honest men. It is a 
bad example to promote such men.” Though they may prove all 
right it is hardly safe to trust them. “ I feel no security that they 
will not do wrong in the future,” even if they have not in the past. 
“ General Arnold was an irreligious and profane man.” King’s 
Life and Correspondence of King, I, 420. 



Morris on the French Revolution. 


61 


* 'jf 

vocal reformers of France at this time. /Slorris appeared 
to many, both in France and America, a<TS false represen¬ 
tative of the real ideas of his country, as lukewarm in a 
faith that demanded fervor, as a republican of the Venetian 
type, if indeed a republican at all, as an aristocrat without 
even the thinnest disguise. Thus the feeling arose that he 
was the determined opponent of the Revolution from the 
beginning and from principle, a suspicion to which much 
color was given by his social relations with the aristocratic 
circles in France, and which has found its way into the 
books. But this is only partly true. The personal atti¬ 
tude of Morris toward France at the beginning of the 
Revolution was that of a grateful citizen of a grateful sister 
nation. He considered France the “natural ally” of his 
country and he sincerely wished her well . 1 In a letter to 
the Comte de Moustier, then minister to this country, con¬ 
taining Morris’s first allusions to the Revolution, he ex¬ 
presses “ the,..wish, the ardent wish, that this great ferment 
may terminate not only to the good but to the glory of 
France. On the scenes which her great theatre now dis¬ 
plays, the eyes of the universe are fixed with anxiety. The 
national honor is deeply interested in a successful issue.” a 
Repeatedly does he reveal in his letters a thorough sym¬ 
pathy with her in her struggles for freedom and reform. 
Writing to President Washington, he says, yWe have, I 
think, every reason to wish that the patriots [Lafayette and 
men of that class] may be successful. The generous wish 
which a free people must form to disseminate freedom, the 
grateful emotion which rejoices in the happiness of a bene¬ 
factor, and a strong personal interest as well in the liberty 
as in the power of this country, all conspire to make us 
far from indifferent spectators. I say that we have an 
interest in the liberty of France. The leaders here are our 
friends; many of them have imbibed their principles in 
America, and all have been fired by our example. Their 


1 Morris. Diary and Letters, I, 27, 219. 


2 Ibid. 21. 



62 


The French Revolution. 


opponents are by no means rejoiced at the success of our 
Revolution, and many of them are disposed to form connec¬ 
tions of the strictest kind with Great Britain. >r \ 

Nor does this feeling vanish as the Revolution proceeds. 
In the summer of 1790 he “sincerely, nay, devoutly” 
wishes that the Constitution (in which, however, he does not 
believe, and which he declares is good for nothing) “ may 
be productive of great and lasting good to France,” and it 
is almost with the fervent sympathy of a Frenchman him¬ 
self that he writes, as he contemplates the great events un¬ 
rolling themselves before him, and the little men at the 
helm, with their vain and petty plans and their distressing 
incompetence: “The present moment teems with great 
events. /'’Would to God that, in a certain city which you 
have sometimes seen, there were great men established to 
meet with proper dignity the greatness of those incidents 
which will be hourly produced,” and a moment later, “ I 
deeply bemoan these things, for I love France sincerely.” 1 2 
Even at the close of the year 1792, when the entire fabric of 
the Old Regime had been destroyed, when the Royal family 
was in the hands of the Assembly, and the Assembly in the 
hands of the mob, when the social, moral and political 
demoralization of the country was complete, and when 
Morris sought in all this chaos for anything of which he 
could approve, his deep interest in and attachment to France 
were not shaken. He writes to Thomas Pinckney: “ I wish 
much, very much, the happiness of this inconstant people. 
I love them. I feel grateful for their efforts in our cause, 
and I consider the establishment of a good constitution 
here as a principal means, under Divine Providence, of ex¬ 
tending the blessings of freedom to the many millions of 
my fello\y-men who groan in bondage on the Continent 

of Europe.” 9 

• ’’ ^ • 

This passage, like many others, shows that Morris was not 
the opponent of the principles of revolution in themselves, 


1 Diary and Letters, I, 68. April 29, 1789. 

2 Ibid. I, 313-314. 3 Ibid. II, 8. Dec. 3, 1792. 



Morris on the French Revolution. 


63 


that in the special case of France he believed that a revolu¬ 
tion was desirable and even necessary, and that if only 
wisely conducted it might lead to useful and permanent 
improvement. 1 He believed that reform was demanded 
by the exigencies of the case. France indeed, as he soon 
thought, rushed forward in the new way too impetuously 
and too far, but he saw reason to hope that, seeing her error, 
she might in the future proceed more cautiously and more 
wisely. He clung to this hope as long as it seemed pos¬ 
sible that affairs might take a better turn. Then he ex¬ 
pressed repeatedly his sorrow that this splendid opportunity 
for introducing a better social and political order among 
men had been lost and perhaps forever. 

It was then from no petty caste feeling, no illiberality of 
mind that Morris saw in the Revolution so much to doubt 
and censure. To the general aspiration of the French for 
freer life he instinctively responded. To the spirit of the 
national genius he was keenly alert. The French blood 
that flowed in his veins had preserved much of its light and 
racy Gallic quality. There is the same verve, the same 
sure insight and luminous conception and the same graphic 
presentation that distinguish the French. By the most 
characteristic qualities of his mind Morris was fitted to be 
a gifted, because an intelligent, critic of the French people 
at that great and critical time. To represent him as the 
smug patrician to whom the breath of freedom was a 
stench in the nostrils, as the blind and bigoted devotee of the 


status ~qm„ because under it he found himself quite well, as 
monarchy man and “high-flying aristocrat,” because for¬ 
sooth he did not share in their fulness the opinions of Jef¬ 
ferson or Paine, is to show oneself indisposed to give the 
evidence its true weight, or unable to appreciate the fact that 
along with a temperament that may be termed haughty, 
proud, aristocratic, may go great liberality of mind; that 
along with a marked personal preference for association 


1 Diary and Letters, I, 38, 303, 525. 


I 



64 


The French Revolution. 


with those who possess the graces and refinements of a 
privileged class, may go a breadth of view and sympathy 
that far transcends the class—surely a phenomenon suffi¬ 
ciently common in the history of republics that it need 
occasion no wonder or surprise. 

FRANCE IN THE SPRING OF 1789. 

^Morris reached Paris the third of February, 1789.^ All 
eyes were then focused upon the coming States-General. 
The election campaign was at its height; the people, so long 
silent, were impatiently looking forward to the day when 
they should recover their rights of speech, and confidently 
expected the early inauguration of a new era, bright with 
useful reforms and fraught with the speedy abolition of 
odious abuses. The w r ord “ constitution ” was upon the 
lips of every Frenchman and inflamed every mind. Hope 
had been awakened, and with buoyant enthusiasm looked 
undaunted into the difficult future. “ Even voluptuousness 
itself arises from its couch of roses,” writes Morris, early 
in February, “ and looks anxiously abroad at the busy 
scene to which nothing can now be indifferent. ... A 
spirit which has lain dormant for generations starts up and 
stares about, ignorant of the means of obtaining,, but 
ardently desirous to possess the object, consequently active, 
energetic, easily led, but alas! easily, too easily misled. 
Such is the instinctive love of freedom which now boils in 
the bosom of your country, that respect for his sovereign, 
which forms the distinctive mark of a Frenchman, stimu¬ 
lates and fortifies, on the present occasion, those sentiments 
which have hitherto been deemed most hostile to mon¬ 
archy. For Louis the Sixteenth has himself proclaimed 
from the throne a wish that every barrier should be thrown 
down which time or accident may have opposed to the 
general felicity of his people.” 1 

^Morris found on that side of the Atlantic a strong 


1 Diary and Letters, I, 21. 



Morris on the French Revolution. 


65 


resemblance to what he had left on this^“ a nation which 
exists in hopes, prospects and expectations, the reverence 
for ancient establishments gone, existing forms shaken to 
the foundation, and a new order of things about to take 
place in which, perhaps, even to the very names, all former 
institutions will be disregarded, 1 ” a rather remarkable con¬ 
jecture to hazard, thus early, when public opinion was still 
largely conservative, yet one which was destined to be fully 
realized later in the insane innovations of the enrages . 1 

Morris was astounded at the rapidity of the changes go¬ 
ing on in France. Books on that country a half a dozen 
years old contained ideas no longer truly descriptive, fur¬ 
nished information no,longer accurate or adequate. 2 Anglo¬ 
mania was raging. .".Everything is a l’anglaise, and the 
desire to imitate the English prevails alike in the cut of a 
coat and the form of a constitution.” Life in Paris moves 
so fast that calm reflection and mature deliberation become 
impossible. In this feverish atmosphere men are com¬ 
pelled to pronounce their definitive judgment on a given 
subject after a moment’s hasty glance. The result is that 
public opinion, thus hurried, is likely to be unsound and 
insecure. 8 

The utter lack of thoughtful preparation on the part of 
the Government for the approaching events, the want of 
any definite programme, the absence of anything like states¬ 
manship, filled Morris with amazement. “ The Revolution 
that is carrying on in this country is a strange one,” he 
writes; “a few people who have set it going look on with 
astonishment at their own work. The ministers contribute 
to the destruction of ministerial authority, without knowing 
either what they are doing or what to do. M. Necker, who 


^hat public opinion was less radical than is commonly sup¬ 
posed, see Morse Stephen’s French Revolution and Lowell’s “ The 
Eve of the French Revolution,” chapters on the Cahiers. 

2 Diary and Letters, I, 31. “ Stay where you are a little while 

and when you come back you will hardly know your country.” 

Letter to Marquis de la Luzerne, French ambassador at London, 

I, 35- 3 * * ^ I, 57- 



66 


The French Revolution. 


thinks he directs everything, is perhaps himself as much 
an instrument as any of those which he makes use of.” \ Of 
M. Necker he never had more than a mediocre opinion. 
Meeting him for the first time, he observes, “ He has the 
look and manner of the counting-house, and, being dressed 
in embroidered velvet, he contrasts strongly with his habili¬ 
ments. His bow, his address, etc., say T am the man/ . . . 
If he is a really great man I am deceived. ... If he is not 
a laborious man I am also deceived.” 2 He was cunning. 3 
He was excessively vain. 4 But he was not a man of great 
ability. 5 With a ministry that was incompetent, vacillating 
and short-sighted the outlook was not bright. Amid all 
those in public life Morris discovered no one plainly marked 
as the man of the times. “ Gods,” he exclaims, “ what a 
theatre this is for a first rate character.” 6 He looks for 
such a character and looks in vain. Years after he will con¬ 
sider it extraordinary that times so fruitful, so intense, so 
pregnant, have brought forth no one to be their master/ 


1 Diary and Letters, I, 55. 2 Ibid. I, 44-45. 

3 Ibid. I, 79. 4 Ibid. I, 95. 5 Ibid. I, 205. 6 Ibid. I, 55-56. 

7 Ibid. II, 61. “ It is a wonderful thing, sir, that four years of 

convulsion among four and twenty millions of people has brought 
forth no one, either in civil or military life, whose head would fit 
the cap which fortune has woven.” April 18, 1794. 

Morris certainly never thought of Mirabeau as such a man. He 
speaks of him only a few times, and then in terms highly depreciatory. 
On the day of Mirabeau’s funeral he wrote in his Diary: “ The funeral 
of Mirabeau (attended, it is said, by more than one hundred thou¬ 
sand persons, in solemn silence) has been an imposing spectacle. 
It is a vast tribute paid to superior talents, but no great incitement 
to virtuous deeds. Vices, both degrading and detestable, marked 
this extraordinary creature. Completely prostitute, he sacrificed 
everything to the moment. Cupidus alieni, prodigus sui; venal, 
shameless, and yet greatly virtuous when pushed by a prevailing 
impulse, but never truly virtuous, because never under the steady 
control of reason nor the firm authority of principle, I have seen 
this man in the short space of two years, hissed, honored, hated, 
mourned. Enthusiasm has just now presented him gigantic; time 
and reflection will shrink his stature. The busy idleness of the hour 
must find some other object to execrate or to exalt. Such is man, 
and particularly the Frenchman.” I, 398. Later he calls him “ one 
of the most unprincipled scoundrels that ever lived.” I, 502. And 



Morris on the French Revolution. 67 

In regard to the economic condition of the country Mor¬ 
ris says but little. He finds agriculture in a very backward 
state. Much land lies fallow and much is but slovenly 
cultivated. Husbandry is a science but very little under¬ 
stood, yet were it understood, miracles might be performed. 
“If at the same time,” he writes, “they should improve 
both their agriculture and constitution, it would be difficult 
to calculate the power of this nation. But the progress 
of the nation seems to be much greater in the fine arts than 
in the useful arts. This perhaps depends on a government 
oppressive to industry but favorable to genius.” 1 

The aspect of Paris was ominous, misery there taking 
on its most intense forms. The people were suffering 
severely from cold. 2 Later as summer drew on famine 
set in. The great host of the unemployed increased daily, 


still later he declares that “ the price of his assistance was perfectly 
known for every measure.” II, 254. 

In Jefferson’s contemporary writings there are hardly any refer¬ 
ences to Mirabeau—though in later years he apparently entertained 
his friends with descriptions fervid enough. “ It is true, that if I 
had my choice,” writes William Wirt, in 1806, “ I would much rather 
have my son (as to mind) a Mirabeau than a Marshall—if such a 
prodigy as I have heard Mirabeau described by Mr. Jefferson, did 
ever really exist. For he spoke of him as uniting two distinct and 
perfect characters in himself, whenever he pleased;—the mere logi¬ 
cian, with a mind apparently as sterile and desolate as the sands of 
Arabia, but reasoning at such times with an Herculean force, which 
nothing could resist; at other times bursting forth with a flood of 
eloquence more sublime than Milton ever imputed to the Cherubim 
and Seraphim, and bearing all before him.” Kennedy. Life of 
William Wirt, I, 137. Henry Clay told Randall that he had heard 
Jefferson speak in strong and glowing terms of Mirabeau’s “ match¬ 
less power over the minds of every class of men.” Randall. Life 
of Jefferson, I, 527, note. 1 Diary and Letters, I, 53. 

2 Writing to General Morris, his brother, he says: “I believe 
your apprehensions of the sufferings of people here from cold are 
not unfounded. But they have in that respect an advantage which 
you did not think of, viz., that they are stowed so close, and in 
such little cabins, that if they live through the first few months 
they have an atmosphere of their own about them. In effect, none 
of the beggars I have seen complain to me of cold. They all ask 
for means to get a morsel of bread, and show by their countenance 
that by bread they mean wine.” I, 38. 



68 


The French Revolution. 


and their demand for bread, ever growing louder and more 
imperative, could only with the greatest difficulty be satis¬ 
fied by extreme vigilance and attention on the part of the 
government, a vigilance and attention rendered doubly dif¬ 
ficult by the very intensity of the suffering they aimed to 
allay. All grain convoys must be guarded by the military 
else they would never reach their destination, but would 
be plundered on the way. For weeks the grain supply 
was maintained only by means of rigorous military pro¬ 
tection. 1 

The most graphic portrayal of the state of French morals 
at this time that we have from the pen of any American 
is to be found in a letter written by Morris to Washington 
in the latter part of April on the eve of the States-General. 
“ The materials for a revolution in this country are very 
indifferent. Everybody agrees that there is an utter prostra¬ 
tion of morals—but this general position can never convey 
to the American mind the degree of depravity. It is not 
by any figure of rhetoric, or force of language, that the 
idea can be communicated. An hundred anecdotes and 
an hundred thousand examples are required to show the 
extreme rottenness of every member. There are men and 
women who are greatly and eminently virtuous. I have 
the pleasure to number many in my own acquaintance, but 
they stand forward from a background deeply and darkly 
shaded. It is, however, from such crumbling matter that 
the great edifice of freedom is to be erected here. Perhaps, 
like the stratum of rock which is spread under the whole 
surface of their country, it may harden when exposed to 
the air, but it seems quite as likely that it will fall and 
crush the builders. I own to you that I am not without 
such apprehensions, for there is one fatal principle which 
pervades all ranks. It is a perfect indifference to the viola¬ 
tion of all engagements. Inconsistency is so mingled in 
the blood, marrow, and very essence of this people, that 


1 Diary and Letters, I, iii. 



Morris on the French Revolution. 


69 


when a man of high rank and importance laughs to-day at 
what he seriously asserted yesterday, it is considered as in 
the natural order of things. Consistency is the phenome¬ 
non. Judge then, what would be the value of an associa¬ 
tion should such a thing be proposed, and even adopted. 
The great mass of the people have no religion but the 
priests, no law but their superiors, no morals but their 
interest. These are the creatures who, led by drunken 
curates, are now in the highroad a la Liberte, and the first 
use they make of it is to form insurrections everywhere for 
the want of bread.” 1 2 After several months’ observation of 
the Parisian populace he writes that “ Paris is perhaps as 
wicked a spot as exists.” Here the blackest crimes, the 
most shameless corruption, the most flagrant misdeeds are 
fearfully common. “Incest, murder, bestiality, fraud, ra¬ 
pine, oppression, baseness, cruelty ”—such are the crimes 
of which Morris accuses Paris, “ and yet,” says he, “ this is 
the citj^ which has stepped forward in the sacred cause of 
liberty.” *L _ 

\The radical and theoretical character of the current polit¬ 
ical thought, ready to embark with light heart upon the 
most venturesome experiments, found a determined oppo¬ 
nent in Morris, who had been trained in the hard and un¬ 
romantic school of practical politics. \ The literati sitting at 
ease in their quiet studies were spinning new political sys¬ 
tems, attractive without doubt, yet suitable alone for men 
whose like had never yet been seen. Beholding the evils 
and deficiencies of the present form of government, they 
deduced therefrom the simple doctrine that everything 
would necessarily be better in proportion as it departed 
from existing institutions. 3 Such hopeless dilettantism had, 
in Morris’s opinion, no role to play in the constructive work 

of statesmanship. Nor was this theoretical, speculative cast 

-—- - - - -- - -■ ■ ■ ■■-—- .. — - — 

1 Diary and Letters, I, 68-69. See also I, 224, under date of Nov. 

10, 1789. “ Surely there never was a nation which verged farther 

towards anarchy. No law, no morals, no principles, no religion.” 

2 Ibid. I, 200. Oct. 21, 1789. 8 Ibid. I, 96, 198, 382. 






70 


The French Revolution. 


of thought peculiar to the literati. It was characteristic of 
the higher classes quite generally, who most imprudently 
were playing with republicanism, only later content to cease 
after being scorched themselves. For the present all heads 
were buzzing with speculative ideas. “ Republicanism,” 
says Morris, in March, 1789, “ is absolutely a moral in¬ 
fluenza from which neither titles, places, nor even the 
diadem can guard their possessor.” In his view such ideas 
of government were not at all suited to the condition and 
character of the French people. 

In the midst of this advanced society Morris was an 
anomaly. Fresh from the newly founded republic across 
the sea, to whose foundation he had himself contributed, 
he was taunted here in Paris with being an aristocrat. 
Madame de Tesse, Madame de Lafayette found his views 
altogether too moderate. He wrote a friend that he had 
the strangest employment possible. “ A republican, and 
just as it were emerged from one of the most republican 
constitutions, I preach incessantly respect for the Prince, 
attention to the rights of the nobility, and moderation, not 
only in the object but in the pursuit of it.” 1 This was the 
burden of all his later advice to those active in the Revo¬ 
lution—moderation, respect for the established order. The 
conservatism of his nature and training was thus early 
aroused by the radical and dangerous theories about him, 
as it was later to be confirmed by the violence of the deeds 
to which they led. He steadily combated “ the violence 
and excess of those persons who, either inspired with an 
enthusiastic love of freedom or prompted by sinister de¬ 
signs, are disposed to drive everything to extremity.”_A 

Such was France as Morris found her in 1789. Rever¬ 
ence for existing institutions was gone, the very founda¬ 
tions of society had been sapped. A sodden, debased, 
vicious populace; sentimental, romantic literati, whose ideas 
came from study shelves and whose ignorance of the actual 


1 Diary and Letters, I, 27. 





Morris on the French Revolution. 71 

world was such as only closet scholars could pretend to, 
were crying loudly for liberty, which, like a phantom float¬ 
ing before them, they but dimly and imperfectly under¬ 
stood. Morris felt that such people were poor masters to 
build the edifice of freedom, for, in his view, their idea 
of freedom was superficial, their conceptions of society and 
the State inadequate or false or misshapen. Add to this 
the irresolution and wavering timidity of the ministry, dilly¬ 
dallying with half-measures; the populace of Paris, goaded 
on by hunger and ever ready to break forth into deeds of 
violence; the prevailing immorality, the levity and incom¬ 
petence of the higher classes, and we have the picture 
of France at the outbreak of her Revolution, painted by a 
cool and far-seeing, and by no means hostile, American. 
Add further the condition of the army, the only remaining 
support of existing institutions, now that philosophy had 
deserted them, and the shadows of the picture deepen. 1 
Popular loyalty had been undermined, and the army was an 
undisciplined, unreliable force, itself deeply infected with 
the new ideas which it might be asked to combat. 

“ All these things,” says Morris, “ in a nation not yet 
fitted by education and habit for the enjoyment of freedom, 
give me frequently suspicions that they will greatly over¬ 
shoot their mark, if indeed they have not already done it 2 
| O n July i, 1789, two weeks before the storming of the 
Bastille, Morris writes to Jay that “ Liberte is now the 
general cry and Autorite is a name, not a real existence.” 3 
M. Taine, in the first volume of his history, wrongly as¬ 
cribes this to Morris’s correspondence with Washington 
and gives it the date July 19. 4 It was, however, written 
July 1 in a letter to Jay. Manifestly Morris’s criticism is 
much more striking if bearing the earlier date. To say 
of the government that it is in a state of dissolution a fort¬ 
night before the great popular insurrection which embodied 


1 Diary and Letters, I, 107, 108, 109, US, H3- See also Sparks’s 
Morris, II, 80. 2 Ibid. I, 109. July 1, 1789. 

8 Ibid. I, 108. July 1, 1789. 4 Taine. French Revolution, I, 38. 



72 


The French Revolution. 


that dissolution occurred, and when it was as yet un¬ 
dreamed of, differs widely from saying the same thing five 
days after that event has taken place. 


THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY.—ITS 

CHARACTER. 

On the fifth of May, 1789, the States-General were con¬ 
vened in the splendid Salle des Menus in the palace of Ver¬ 
sailles, amid the pomp and display of royalty, the trappings 
of a brilliant and doomed society. It was “ the last gala 
day of the old monarchy.” Of all Morris’s brilliant de¬ 
scriptions of revolutionary events none is more vivid than 
that of this first session of the States-General. He says 
that he reached Versailles early and at a little after eight 
got into the hall. “ I sit there in a cramped situation till 
after twelve, during which time the different members are 
brought in and placed, one ‘ bailliage ’ after the other. 
When M. Necker comes in he is loudly and repeatedly 
clapped, and so is the Duke of Orleans; also a Bishop who 
has long lived in his diocese and practised there what his 
profession enjoins. Another Bishop, who preached yes¬ 
terday a sermon which I did not hear, is applauded, but 
those near me say that this applause is unmerited. An old 
man who refused to dress in the costume prescribed for 
the Tiers, and who appears in his farmer’s habit, receives 
a long and loud plaudit. M. de Mirabeau is hissed, though 
not loudly. The King at length arrives and takes his seat; 
the Queen on his left, two steps lower than him. He 
makes a short speech, and well spoken, or - rather read. 
The tone and manner have all the fierte which can be 
expected or desired from the blood of the Bourbons. He 
is interrupted in the reading by acclamations so warm and 
of such lively affection that the tears start from my eyes in 
spite of myself. She Queen weeps or seems to weep, but 
not one voice is heard to wish her well. I would certainly 
raise my voice if I were a Frenchman; but I have no right 
to express a sentiment, and in vain solicit those who are 


Morris on the French Revolution. 73 

near me to do it. After the King has spoken he takes off 
his hat, and when he puts it on again his nobles imitate his 
example. Some of the Tiers do the same, but by degrees 
they take them off again. The King then takes off his hat. 
The Queen seems to think it wrong, and a conversation 
seems to pass in which the King tells her he chooses to do 
it whether consistent or not consistent with the ceremonial; 
but I could not swear to this, being too far distant to see 
very distinctly, much less to hear. The nobles uncover 
by degrees, so that, if the ceremonial requires these man¬ 
oeuvres, the troops are not yet properly drilled. After the 
King’s speech and the covering and uncoverings, the Garde 
des Sceaux makes one much longer, but it is delivered in 
a very ungraceful manner, and so indistinctly that nothing 
can be judged of it by me—until it is in print. When he 
has done M. Necker rises. He tries to play the orator, but 
he plays it very ill. The audience salute him with a long, 
loud plaudit. Animated by their approbation, he falls into 
action and emphasis, but a bad accent and an ungraceful 
manner destroy much of the effect which ought to follow 
from a composition written by M. Necker and spoken by 
M. Necker. He presently asks the King’s leave to employ 
a clerk, which, being granted, the clerk proceeds in the 
lecture. It is very long. It contains much information and 
many things very fine, but it is too long and has many 
repetitions and too much compliment, and what the French 
call emphase. The plaudits were loud, long and incessant. 
These will convince the King and Queen of the national 
sentiment, and tend to prevent the intrigue against the 
present administration, at least for a while. After the speech 
is over the King rises to depart, and receives a long and 
affecting Vive le Roi. The Queen rises and, to my great 
satisfaction, she hears for the first time in several months 
the sound of Vive la Reine. She makes a low courtesy, 
and this produces a louder acclamation, and that a lower 
courtesy.” ] 

1 Diary and Letters, I, 75-76. 




74 


The French Revolution. 


Such was the opening day of the Constituent Assembly, 
“ the day which my heart has long awaited/’ as Louis the 
Sixteenth said in his address, thus voicing the thought 
uppermost in the mind of the nation. What was the char¬ 
acter of this Assembly, called finally after such dreary and 
impatient waiting?^ Was it competent to discharge its im¬ 
portant task, the thorough and permanent reformation of 
a great state? Morris’s answer is decisively No! Neither 
its membership, nor its environment, nor its modes of pro¬ 
cedure, nor the spirit which rules it, nor the external in¬ 
fluences it obeys, inspire him with confidence. That politi¬ 
cal inexperience, that eloquent idealism, that ill-timed infat¬ 
uation for philosophy and reason, whose presence in the 
nation he has already deplored, he finds dominant here in 
the Constituent Assembly, f There are some able men 
in the National Assembly,” fe writes, toward the end of 
July, 1789, “yet the best heads among them would not 
be injured by experience, and, unfortunately, there are a 
good number who, with much imagination, have little knowl¬ 
edge, judgment, or reflection. . . . They have all that ro¬ 
mantic spirit and all those romantic ideas of government 
which, happily for America, we were cured of before it 
was too late.” 1 Morris felt that such a species of thought 
might, perhaps, be adapted to the salons of the leisured 
great, serving there “ as ingenious exercises for the mind,” 
but that it could only grow rank and poisonous, trans¬ 
planted to the national parliament. Here, in the face of 
the diseased body politic, he thought the practical knowl¬ 
edge of the statesman, not of the doctrinaire, was indispen¬ 
sable. Those who would cure such a society by exploits 
of the imagination, however daring, or of logic, however 
flawless, were not the ones for whom the crisis called. Yet 


1 Diary and Letters, I, 143. See also Sparks’ edition, II, 127. 
“ The greater part have adopted systematic reasonings in matters of 
commerce as in those of government; so that, disdaining attention 
to facts and deaf to the voice of experience, while others deliberate 
they decide, and are more constant in their opinions in proportion as 
they are less acquainted with the subject, which is natural enough.” 



Morris on the French Revolution. 


75 

of such a character were very many of those who had been 
sent up to Versailles to prescribe for unhealthy France. It 
is not difficult to understand why this was so, but none the 
less was it a misfortune for France. 

This same distrust of the Assembly is shown again in a 
letter written to Washington in January of the following 
year. 

£y° ur sentiments on the Revolution effecting here 
I believe to be perfectly just,” wrote Morris, “ because they 
perfectly accord with my own, and that is, you know, the 
only standard which Heaven has given us by .which to 
judge. The King is in effect a prisoner at Paris, and obeys 
entirely the National Assembly. This Assembly may be 
divided into three parts. One, called the aristocrats, con¬ 
sists of the high clergy, the members of the law (not law¬ 
yers), and such of the nobility as think they ought to form 
a separate order; another, which has no name, but which 
consists of all sorts of people, really friends to a free gov¬ 
ernment. The third is composed of what are called here 
the enrages, that is, the madmen. These are the most 
numerous, and are of that class which in America is known 
by the name of pettifogging lawyers, together with a host 
of curates, and many of those who, in all revolutions, 
throng to the standard of change because they are not well. 
This party, in close alliance with the populace, derives from 
that circumstance very great authority. They have already 
unhinged everything. . . . The torrent rushes on irresisti¬ 
ble until it shall have wasted itself. 

“ The aristocrats are without a leader, and without any 
plan or counsels as yet, but ready to throw themselves into 
the arms of any one who shall offer. The middle party, 
who mean well, have unfortunately acquired their ideas of 
government from books, and are admirable fellows upon 
paper; but as it happens, somewhat unfortunately, that the 
men who live in the world are very different from those 
who dwell in the heads of philosophers, it is not to be 
wondered at if the systems taken out of books are fit for 
nothing but to be put into books again. Marmontel is 


76 


The French Revolution. 


the only man I have met with among their literati who 
seems truly to understand the subject.” 1 

Great is Morris’s scorn of this tendency to theorize upon 
everything, so widely prevalent; to solve pressing emergen¬ 
cies by appeals to books. He gives a case illustrating what 
he considers the rare fitness of the then rulers to conduct 
the affairs of the kingdom. There is a scarcity of bread 
which must be met in some way and immediately. La¬ 
fayette is alarmed about it and brings the matter up for 
discussion. Surely this is a question to be settled by prac¬ 
tical common sense and business methods rather than by 
book lore. Yet the Duke de la Rochefoucauld, a man of 
prominence and influence, thinks to aid in meeting the dif¬ 
ficulty by telling of some one “ who has written an excel¬ 
lent book upon the commerce of grain.” 2 'Morris felt and 
continued to feel only the sincerest contempt for those 
theorists who, in Arthur Young’s phrase, used to talk 
glibly about “ making a constitution ” as if it were “ a pud¬ 
ding to be made by a receipt.^? 3 

But, if the equipment of tlihse constitution-makers was 
vulnerable in so many points, could nothing be said in 
approval of the methods they adopted to enable them to 
form the new regime under which their aims were to be 
realized? But little, in Morris’s view. The very structure 
of the Assembly itself, as well as the character of its internal 
regulations, were better fitted to thwart than to further its 
mission as a constitution-making body. He found the 
same objection that Jefferson did in its size. Containing 
nearly twelve hundred members, it was so large as to be 
unwieldy, demanding a hall so vast that conversational 
discussion became quite impossible. Nor was this all, for 
there were no closed sessions, but the galleries were thrown 
open to the public, who added a thousand more to the 
audience, and who themselves took an active part in the 
proceedings, applauding, hissing, or threatening the mem- 

1 Diary and Letters, I, 277-278. 2 Ibid. I, 156. Sept., 1789. 

3 Young’s Travels in France. Bohn edition, 183. 



Morris on the French Revolution. 


77 


bers. Furthermore, they neglected to adopt any distinct 
and tried method of parliamentary order. Of discus¬ 
sion proper there was little; only set speeches more or less 
elaborate. “ JThey discuss nothing in the Assembly,” says 
Morris. “ One large half of the time is spent in hollowing 
and bawling—their manner of speaking. Those who in¬ 
tend to speak write their names on a tablet and are heard 
in the order that their names are written down, if the others 
will hear them, which they often refuse to do, keeping up 
a continual uproar till the orator leaves the pulpit. Each 
man permitted to speak delivers the result of his lucubra¬ 
tions, so that the opposing parties fire off their cartridges, 
and it is a million to one if their missile arguments happen 
to meet. The arguments are usually printed; therefore 
there is as much attention paid to making them sound and 
look well, as to convey instruction or produce conviction. 
But there is another ceremony which the arguments go 
through, and which does not fail to affect the form, at least, 
and perhaps the substance. They are read beforehand in 
a small society of young men and women, and generally 
the fair friend of the speaker is one, or else the fair whom 
he means to make his friend, and the society very politely 
give their approbation, unless the lady who gives the tone 
to that circle chances to reprehend something, which is, 
of course, altered if not amended. Do not suppose I am 
playing the traveller. I have assisted at some of these read¬ 
ings, and will give you an anecdote from one of them. 
I was at Madame de Stael’s, the daughter of M. Necker. 
She is a woman of wonderful wit, and above vulgar preju¬ 
dices of every kind. Her house is a kind of Temple of 
Apollo, where the men of wit and fashion are collected 
twice a week at supper, and once at dinner, and some¬ 
times more frequently. The Comte de Clermont-Tonnerre 
(one of their greatest orators) read to us a very pathetic 
oration, and the object was to show that, as penalties are 
the legal compensation for injuries and crimes, the man 
who is hanged, having by that event paid his debt to 


78 


The French Revolution. 


society, ought not to be held in dishonor; and in like man¬ 
ner, he who has been condemned for seven years to be 
flogged in the galleys should, when he has served out his 
apprenticeship, be received again into good company as 
if nothing had happened. You smile; but observe that the 
extreme to which the matter was carried the other way, 
dishonoring thousands for the guilt of one, has so shocked 
the public sentiment as to render this extreme fashionable. 
The oration was very fine, very sentimental, very pathetic, 
and the style harmonious. Shouts of applause and full 
approbation. When this was pretty well over, I told him 
that his speech was extremely eloquent but that his prin¬ 
ciples were not very solid. Universal surprise. A few 
remarks changed the face of things. The position was 
universally condemned, and he left the room. I need not 
add that as yet it has never been delivered in the Assembly, 
and yet it was of the kind which produces a decree by ac¬ 
clamation; for sometimes an orator gets up in the midst of 
another deliberation, makes a fine discourse, and closes 
v with a good snug resolution, which is carried with a huzza. 
Thus in considering a plan for a national bank proposed by 
M. Necker, one of them took it into his head to move that 
every member should give his silver buckles, which was 
agreed to at once, and the honorable member laid his upon 
the table, after which the business went on again. It is 
difficult to euess whereabouts the flock will settle when 



1 Diary and Letters, I, 278-279. Letter to Washington, Jan., 1790. 
Samuel Breck, who happened to be in Paris during the month of 
February, 1791, has left an interesting description of a session of the 
National Assembly. “ I had arrived late,” he says, “ and could 
not get a place, so I had to wait on a rough stairway erected for 
the occasion only and leading to the gallery. Here I was desired 
to take a seat and be patient until some person should come out. 
While thus stationed, I fell into a conversation with the soldiers 
on guard, and chatted with them familiarly for a quarter of an 
hour, so that when the door opened they good-naturedly admitted 
me without asking for my card. When I entered I found myself 
in the best place in the house, being just behind and above the 



Morris on the French Revolution. 79 

Such theatrical dilettantism was utterly repugnant to 
Morris’s sense of the dignity and seriousness of the moment, 
and he was astonished to find it flourishing in the very 
midst of the Assembly. Men vested with the highest pow¬ 
ers in the State and commissioned to provide for the pres¬ 
ent and future welfare of their country, were yet suscepti- 


president and almost within reach of the far-famed Mirabeau. 
He was seated close by, acting as one of the four secretaries. The 
tribune, from which every speaker was obliged to address the 
house, was in front, and to crown my good fortune, there hap¬ 
pened to arise just as I entered a most interesting discussion. The 
subject was this: The king’s aunts having emigrated with the 
intention to go to Rome, had been arrested near the frontier and 
a notarial statement of the business was sent to the Assembly. 
The receipt of it occasioned a very animated debate, which com¬ 
menced by the well-known Abbe Maurey rushing to the tribune, 
into which he entered after a scuffle with several other members 
who strove to keep him out. He had a huge muff, which he shook 
in the contest, while the president rang a bell to keep order. At 
length he put his foot on the threshold and darted in. The battle 
ceased and silence was restored. The abbe was on the side of the 
court. His oratory was fine and his talents of the first order. 
He condemned the arrest as irregular, because the princesses had 
passports. . . . As soon as he had left the tribune, Mirabeau 
arose in his place to reply. It was a privilege the acting secre¬ 
taries had of addressing the house without going to the tribune. 
I heard him very distinctly on account of his being close by where 
I stood, yet his voice was husky and his articulation thick; in 
short, he spoke as if he had something in his mouth. Notwith¬ 
standing this, such was the clever arrangement of his words and 
the popularity of his theme that he was listened to with great 
attention. He was dressed in powdered hair and three curls were 
over each ear.” Recollections of Samuel Breck, with passages 
from his Note-Books (1771-1862), edited by H. E. Scudder, pp. 
167-168. For a description of the royal family at this time, whom 
Breck was enabled to see in their private chapel at mass, see Rec¬ 
ollections, p. 169: “ The king had a velvet suit and looked very 
like the impression on his coin. His body was in constant 
motion, rolling from side to side while he read his prayers. He 
was lusty and in good health. His brother, Monsieur, resembled 
him much, and his daughter, the Duchess d’Angouleme, now so 
ugly, was then a lovely-looking girl of about fourteen.” 

Two other Americans of prominence were in France at various 
times during the Revolution, Joel Barlow and John Trumbull, but 
they have left only very scanty and disconnected records of what 
they saw. 



80 The French Revolution. 

ble to the most flippant influences. /That they, battling as 
they were with the gravest crisis in their national history, 
should commit errors, great and irreparable perhaps, Mor¬ 
ris could conceive; but to see them have hysterics, to see 
them in moments of tempestuous excitability so lose their 
self-control as to commit the most senseless and silly puer¬ 
ilities, was something for which he was not prepared.' Yet 
he repeatedly saw gusts of violent emotion sweep over 
the National Assembly, leading to deeds which would have 
been ludicrous and grotesque had they not become deplor¬ 
able when committed by the highest political body ever 
convened in the history of the nation. 1 After having 
watched the Assembly a year and a half, Morris writes that 
it has committed many blunders, which are not to be won¬ 
dered at, “ for they have taken genius instead of reason for 
their guide, adopted experiment instead of experience, and 
wander in the dark because they prefer lightning to light.” 

Nor was the environment of the Assembly such as to 
enable it to labor and debate in peace, the one absolutely 
essential condition for the success of any constitution-mak¬ 
ing body. Morris believed that all hope of self-poised de¬ 
liberation and free discussion was lost to the Assembly 
when it moved to Paris, the 6th of October, 178c). The 
entry in his Diary for the next day is as follows: f‘ If my 
calculations are not very erroneous, the Assemblee Nation- 
ale will soon feel the effects of their new position. There 
can be no question of the freedom of debate in a place so 
remarkable for order and decency as the city of Paris.* * 2 


1 These displays of emotion in places little suitable for them 
occurred even in the financial reports of M. Necker. “ His writings 
on finance teem with that sort of sensibility which makes the for¬ 
tune of modern romances.” I, 283. Other remarks of Morris 
on the National Assembly are in the same tenor. “ It is impos¬ 
sible to imagine a more disorderly assembly. They neither reason, 

* examine nor discuss. They clap those whom they approve and 
hiss those whom they disapprove.” I, 197. In a letter to M. 
Necker years after, in 1803, he says: “On en lisait de fort beaux 
[discours] dans cette Assemblee, mais on n’y discutait rien.” 
II, 434 - 2 Diary and Letters, I, 177. 



Morris on the French Revolution. 81 

Nor was there. The intimidations of Paris now began. 
Insurrections and popular outbreaks were organized from 
time to time whose object was to persuade the Assembly 
“ by the gentle influence of the cord ” to obey the people’s 
behest. 

At the close of the year 1790 Morris gives the situation 
as follows: “How will it all end? This unhappy country, 
bewildered in the pursuit of metaphysical whimsies, pre¬ 
sents to one’s moral view a mighty ruin. Like the rem¬ 
nants of ancient magnificence, we admire the architecture 
of the temple, while we detest the false god to whom it was 
dedicated, ^aws and ravens and the birds of night now 
build their nests in its niches; the sovereign, humbled to the 
level of a beggar’s pity, without resources, without authority, 
without a friend; the Assembly, at once a master and a 
slave—new in power, wild in theory, raw in practice, it 
engrosses all functions, though incapable of exercising any, 
and has taken from this fierce, ferocious people every re¬ 
straint of religion and of respect. Here conjecture may 
wander through unbounded space. What sum of misery 
may be requisite to change popular will, calculation cannot 
determine. What circumstances may arise in the order of 
Divine will to give direction to that will, our sharpest vision 
cannot discover. What talents may be found to seize those 
circumstances to influence that will, and, above all, to 
moderate the power which it must confer, we are equally 
ignorant. One thing only seems to be tolerably ascer¬ 
tained, that the glorious opportunity is lost, and (for this 
time at least) the Revolution has failed.” 1 

It is easy to understand Morris’s antipathy toward such 
an assembly. No contrast could be more startling, more 
impressive than that of the body that had framed our con¬ 
stitution and that which was at work on one for France. 
In almost every respect they were at variance. Morris nat¬ 
urally compared our assembly, of which he had himself 


1 Diary and Letters, I, 359-36o. Nov. 19, 1790. 



82 


The French Revolution. 


been a member, manageable in numbers, full of sound 
and ripe political wisdom and sagacity, governed by well 
established modes of procedure, conducting its labors be¬ 
hind closed doors and in quiet, free from intimidation and 
threat, with the monster convention of France, where polit¬ 
ical inexperience, theory and idealism were such forces for 
derangement. This body, disorderly within and the victim 
of disorder without, acting under the influence of fear gener¬ 
ated from the surrounding mob, or of contagious passion 
springing up uncontrolled and uncontrollable in its very 
midst, could only spend itself in confusion or folly; and 
knowing how difficult it had been to frame a constitution 
in the former, he might naturally enough despair of the 
efforts of the latter. 

THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY.—ITS WORK. 

Holding such opinions of the character of the Constit¬ 
uent Assembly, Morris naturally felt no great assurance of 
a happy outcome of its labors. He believed that the 
Assembly was incapable, inadequate to its task. He con¬ 
sidered the ..mental state of the nation shaken, distracted, 
unhealthy. He found that the American example had pow¬ 
erfully affected the attitude of French thought toward lib¬ 
erty, equality and constitutional popular government, yet 
he feared lest the French, lacking experience and poise, 
would seek to apply these new and seductive ideas in an 
arbitrary way with dangerous disregard of changed con¬ 
ditions. 1 He did not, however, allow his gloomy predis¬ 
positions to color his judgment of the specific acts of the 
Assembly. I think it may truthfully be said that he looked 
at the laws which were enacted with an open and impartial 
mind, though he found most of them wanting. Indepen¬ 
dent in his criticism, gifted with keen insight into the 
motives that influence men and into the significance of their 
deeds, and guided by a conservative, but sound and ripe 


1 Diary and Letters, I, 39, 114. 



Morris on the French Revolution. 


83 


political philosophy, he analyzes with great acumen some 
of the features of contemporary French history. He does 
not condemn invariably, as if by force of habit, or because 
of a lack of appreciative sympathy, and yet in the main 
his criticisms are condemnations. 

The royal authority was attacked early in the Revolu¬ 
tion, was gradually pillaged of most of its functions, and 
finally left weak and almost lifeless. The King was made 
a roi faineant, seated upon an insignificant throne. By the 
constitution of 1791 he was deprived of all real power and 
became an inert figure-head. He was supposed to be the 
head of a parliamentary government, yet he could neither 
summon nor dissolve parliament nor take his ministers 
from it and in this manner figure in legislation. . He had 
small power of appointment; civil, military, judicial, ecclesi¬ 
astical and administrative positions all being filled by elec¬ 
tion. His veto was merely suspensive. He could neither 
declare war nor conclude peace. His highest and almost 
only functions were those of an intermediary clerk. Com¬ 
plete and sudden was the change that had come over the 
French monarchy. 

In a monarchy so extenuated as this Morris had no faith. 
He" believed that France needed a strong executive; 
that having been accustomed to it so long, she could not 
brusquely overthrow it without great danger to herself. 
He discovered that the reason for this restriction of royal 
authority to the discharge of mere formalities lay in the 
fact that the French had only known the evils of too pow¬ 
erful an executive, the disadvantages of one too weak being 
outside their experience. Their political education had 
been one-sided; their political knowledge was accordingly 
defective. 

/ Now Morris was no stagnant conservative. He had 
no desire to see royal authority preserved intact as it was 
at the outbreak of the Revolution. He explicitly states 1 
that the character of the monarchy ought to be made more 


liberal and less arbitrary, and he was glad to believe that 




84 


The French Revolution. 


the King himself was of the same opinion. Restrictions were 
manifestly desirable, yet they should not be so sweeping 
as to result in the complete withdrawal of authority from 
the monarch. /'Morris was no reactionary, as he was also 
no radical. He believed in an executive, responsible in¬ 
deed, yet strong/^ He saw the King gradually despoiled of 
all his power, and he believed that the only rescue from the 
ensuing anarchy lay in a partial return to this authority. 
He repeatedly urged his friends, Lafayette among others, 
to rally around the tottering throne. \ He assured them 
that the party of the King was the only one which could 
predominate without danger to the people^ France is 
“ used to be governed and must be governed.” 1 In this 
desire to preserve authority for the King, Morris was not 
influenced by personal considerations. His criticisms of 
Louis XVI are indifferent, unflattering, at times harsh. 
‘/He is an honest man and wishes really to do good, but 
he has not either genius or education to show the way 
towards that good which he desires.” 2 “ His fears govern 

him absolutely. . . . He is a well-meaning man, but ex¬ 
tremely weak, and probably these circumstances will in 
every event secure him from personal injury. An able man 
would not have fallen into his situation, but I think that 
no ability can now extricate him. He must float along on 
the current of events, being absolutely a cypher.” 3 In Jan¬ 
uary, 1790, Morris wrote to Washington as follows: “ If the 
reigning prince were not the small-beer character he is, 
there can be but little doubt that, watching events and mak¬ 
ing tolerable use of them, he would regain his authority; 
but what will you have from a creature who, situated as he 
is, eats and drinks and sleeps well, and laughs, and is as 
merry a grig as lives? The idea that they will give him 
some money when he can economize, and that he will have 
no trouble in governing, contents him entirely. Poor man, 
he little thinks how unstable is his situation He is be- 


1 Diary and Letters, I, 169. 

3 Ibid. 142. See also 108. 


2 Ibid. 114. 



Morris on the French Revolution. 


85 


loved, but it is not with the sort of love which a monarch 
should inspire; it is that kind of good-natured pity which 
one feels for a led captive. There is, besides, no possibility 
of serving him, for at the slightest show of opposition he 
gives up everything and every person.” 1 It was for the 
office, not the man, that Morris argued. J 

Morris’s belief in a strong executive was only deepened 
by the further decisions of the Constituent Assembly. 
It rejected the English and American form of a dual legis¬ 
lature, and decided that the national parliament should 
consist of a single chamber. Morris had sided with the 
Third Estate in believing that a constitution-making body 
should be unique. He thought that in forming their con¬ 
stitution it would be well to vote par fete , but that after its 
completion it would be better to vote par ordre. But when 
the Assembly had reduced the power of the King to a 
minimum, had arrogated most of the authority to itself and 
had declared that the permanent legislative form should be 
a single chamber, elected every two years, he considered 
that as travelling in the highroad to anarchy and that worst 
of all tyrannies, the despotism of a faction in a popular 
assembly. 2 

Morris further dissented from the legislation affecting 
the position of the nobility. At the outbreak of the Revo¬ 
lution, when royal authority was yet strong, he hoped it 
would come to the aid of the privileged orders, and be¬ 
lieved thqt, should it so come, it might prevent their destruc¬ 
tion. 3 He did not agree with Jefferson that it was desirable 
to annihilate all distinctions of order. “ How far such 
views may be right respecting mankind in general is, I 
think, extremely problematical,” says he, “ but with respect 
to this nation I am sure it is wrong and cannot eventuate 
well.^\ Though moving daily in the most aristocratic 


1 Diary and Letters, I, 281. Later Morris refers to the “ uncom¬ 
mon firmness in suffering ” shown by Louis XVI, and laments that 
he has not “ the talent for action.” I, 572. Aug. 18, 1792. 

2 Ibid. 154. Sept. 13, 1789- 8 Ibid. 100, 96. 4 Ibid. 100. 



86 


The French Revolution. 


circles of France, Morris’s judgment of the French nobility 
was not thereby vitiated. He saw clearly the inherent 
weakness of the class, that though no longer possessing 
either “ the force, the wealth or the talents ” of the nation, 
it hugged its venerable privileges and “ rather opposed 
pride than argument ” to its assailants. 1 The nobles did 
not possess the ability of political leadership nor the prac¬ 
tical shrewdness to know when it was necessary to yield. 
Without competent leaders, without well matured plans, 
they pursued a policy of sullen, unavailing obstruction, 
duplicity, selfishness, reactionary scheming. Morris early 
saw that unless they acquired a constitutional right to some 
of their privileges their days were numbered. 2 This they 
did not do, neglecting chances to win favor by assuming an 
open, candid attitude toward the other classes and the ques¬ 
tions at issue, wrapping themselves up in their age-worn 
customs and usages, relying for support upon the royal 
authority, for success upon bold and clever stratagems— 
until it was too late. Yet Morris believed that they should be 
invested with a certain constitutional authority, that being 
“ the only means of preserving any liberty for the people.’! 
Indeed, without such a provision the constitution itself 
could not probably stand. “ If they have the good sense,” 
says our critic, “ to give the nobles, as such, some share in 
the national authority, that constitution will probably en¬ 
dure ; but otherwise it will degenerate into a pure monarchy 
or become a vast republic. A democracy—can that last? I 
think not, I am sure not, unless the whole people are 
changed.” 3 To confound the nobles entirely with the 
people he regarded as a “ strange doctrine.” Their de¬ 
struction would involve “ consequences most pernicious.” 


1 Diary and Letters, I, 115. 2 Ibid. 38. 

3 Ibid. 116. Elsewhere speaking of the taking away of all political 
power from both King and nobles, Morris says that it would lead 
to tyranny either immediately or ultimately “ as a consequence 
of the anarchy which would result from giving the wretched 
constitution of the Pennsylvania legislature to the Kingdom of 
France.” I, 38. 



Morris on the French Revolution . 


87 


He regarded the nobility as an institution of slow growth, 
with ramifications everywhere, the uprooting of which 
could do nothing but remove the sole protection of the 
people from the monarch or the monarch from the people, 
and thus prepare the way either for a complete despotism or 
complete anarchy. He would assign them a definite and 
useful role in the management of the State. He believed 
them capable of performing certain necessary and impor¬ 
tant governmental functions. But the temper of the Assem¬ 
bly and the people was hostile to any such step. Not only 
were they stripped of all the power they possessed, but 
even their titles, coats-of-arms and other distinctions were 
taken from them. 

Morris’s attitude toward this question, as toward that of 
royal authority, was not determined by personal sympathy 
or affiliations, but was the natural dictation of his general 
political creed. Though from the very beginning of his stay 
in France he moved chiefly in aristocratic circles and found 
there most of his friends, he was not thereby prejudiced in 
their favor. Nowhere does he manifest an admiration for 
the French nobility as such. His pages abound in illustra¬ 
tions of the flippancy and frivolity of the nobles. He criti¬ 
cises their policy during the critical months of May and 
June, 1789. He characterizes their pretensions as “ab¬ 
surd.” 1 He finds among them “ ridiculous notions of aris¬ 
tocratic folly.” 2 Indeed, of certain members of the aris¬ 
tocracy whom he met in 1796 in Vienna he says: “The 
conversation of these gentlemen, who have the virtue and 
good fortune of their grandfathers to recommend them, 
leads me almost to forget the crimes of the French Revo¬ 
lution; and often the unforgiving temper and sanguinary 
wishes which they exhibit make me almost believe that the 
assertion of their enemies is true, viz., that it is success alone 
* which has determined on whose side should be the crimes 
and on whose the misery.” 8 /He criticised the Court 

,b—« 


1 Diary and Letters, I, 383. 


2 Ibid. 398. 


8 Ibid. II, 220. 



88 


The French Revolution. 


sharply, condemned the dismissal of the Necker ministry, 
which brought on the storming of the Bastille, as “ a con¬ 
spiracy against freedom./He thought that after what has 
happened, the Comte d’Artois, brother of the King, should 
be exiled from France^ Yet he held that despite its short¬ 
comings the aristocracy could become a useful element in 
the State. And he was supported by the example of Eng¬ 
land, the only other free country of the time whose social 
development had been similar to that of France. 

Morris was, then, opposed to the Revolution on this most 
fundamental question, that of the relations of the different 
classes toward each other. And as a thorough alteration 
, / and readjustment of these relations was one of the chief 
objects and results of the Revolution, this opposition is of 
vital importance. He was estranged from the Revolution^ 
by these radical changes. He dissented from its essential 
character. 

On other matters subsidiary to these chief questions his 
opinions varied. On the subject of the church property 
his criticisms are few. He urged that it be obtained by the 
consent of the clergy, thus seeming to consent to some 
sort of confiscation, but upon a condition that manifestly 
rendered it impracticable. v )He did not believe in a State 
Chu rchA He told some of" his friends who were arguing 
for established religions, that ^TJod is sufficiently powerful 
to do his own business without' human aid, and that man 
should confine his care to the actions of his fellow-crea¬ 
tures, leaving to that Being to influence the thoughts as 
He may think proper?Y 

The Assembly abolished the provinces, the old historic 
territorial divisions of the country, and divided France up 
into eighty-three departments, nearly equal in size and pop¬ 
ulation. After this Morris refers to France as “this (late) 
kingdom .... cast into a congeries of little democracies, 
not laid out according to the rivers and mountains, but with 


1 Diary and Letters, I, 129. July 15, 1789. 


Ibid. 302. 


t 



Morris on the French Revolution. 89 

the square and compass, according to latitude and lon¬ 
gitude/ and he fears that as the provinces formerly had 
different laws and customs, and as under this new arrange¬ 
ment the “clippings and parings” of several provinces 
must fall together in some of the new divisions, “ such fer¬ 
menting matter must give them a kind of political colic.” 1 

The establishment of municipalities, of which there were 
forty thousand, Morris finds radically wrong, and predicts 
that they will become the source of endless confusion and 
complications and great weakness, but he adds that nothing 
can now be done to remedy this state of things, for the 
people have been flattered with “ such extravagant notions 
of liberty ” that they must first be allowed to learn by ex¬ 
perience the inadequacy and clumsiness of their ill-con¬ 
trived, cumbersome institutions. 2 This prediction was 
abundantly verified by later experience, when the munici¬ 
palities, becoming quite independent, split up the central 
authority into thousands of fractional morsels, so many 
sources of mutual opposition and obstruction. 

Morris considered the abolition of the parliaments a nec¬ 
essary step. Their abolition was, he thought, a blow at 
tyranny and essential “ to the establishment of freedom, 
justice and order.’’ 3 He, however, denounced the decree 
stopping pensions—those given by the King to the Court 
and favorites—on the ground that it was a violation of 
the laws of property. He believed that when “ privileges 
were abolished the road was opened for the destruction of 
all property,” and in his view property, even in so doubt¬ 
ful a form, was not to be lightly tampered with/ 

/ The Assembly was at work upon the Constitution during 
rtrdre than two years, from June 17, 1789, to September 3, 
iygi. For some time previous to its final completion the 
question was, would the King accept it, and, if so, would he 
accept it simply or would he seize the occasion to give 
expression to his personal opinions in regard to it? This 


1 Diary and Letters, I, 280. 

3 Ibid. 112, 215. 


2 Ibid. 235, 267, 294. 
4 Ibid. 236, 264-265. 




90 


The French Revolution. 


question was much discussed in ministerial and govern¬ 
mental circles. At the suggestion of one of those who 
stood near the King, probably M. de Montmorin, then Sec¬ 
retary of State, Morris drew up a Speech and Observations, 
which should be delivered by the King before the Assembly 
on taking the oath. This paper was given to M. de Mont¬ 
morin on the 27th of August, 1791, and returned to Morris 
on the 18th of October. Meanwhile the King took the 
oath without reservation or expression of opinion. Morris’s 
brief, consequently, had no direct practical result, yet it 
remains an able and acute criticism of the Constitution. 
As it was intended for the public utterance of the King, 
Morris may have pronounced sentiments therein which he 
himself did not hold, but which he may have considered it 
expedient for the King to express, yet it is probably true 
that the writing reflects in substance his own opinions on 
the Constitution. It is worth while then to examine some¬ 
what closely this critique. 1 

Before entering into this examination, “ the eternal 
maxim of reason and justice, that all government ought to 
be instituted and exercised for the benefit of the people,” is 
gladly and explicitly acknowledged, the identity of the 
interest of the King and that of the people is asserted, like¬ 
wise the desirability of ministerial responsibility to the 
people through their representatives. 

The inconvenience and inexpediency of joining the Dec¬ 
laration of the Rights of Man to the Constitution are indi¬ 
cated. If the Constitution secures these rights, whatever 
they may be, the Declaration is unnecessary, and if not, it 
would be useless and ineffectual. In either case there is a 
risk of contradictions and controversies. Cases of marked 
inconsistency between the affirmations of the Declaration of 
Rights and the exact provisions of the Constitution are 
pointed out. The first requisite of all is that the Constitu¬ 
tion be in harmony with itself. If the different parts come 


1 Sparks’ Morris, II, 490-512. 



Morris on the French Revolution. 


91 


into antagonism with each other, serious misunderstandings 
and even irreconcilable difficulties may arise, nullifying or 
minimizing the benefits hoped for under the reformed 
regime. 

Morris then proceeds to a detailed analysis of the political 
structure erected by the Constitution, and especially of the 
organization and distribution of the legislative, executive 
and judicial powers, whose thorough differentiation and 
separation are declared important. 

Article I of the Constitution provides that the National 
Assembly, which is the legislative body, shall be permanent 
and composed of only one chamber, and that the King’s 
veto shall be only suspensive, effective only for a given 
period. The criticism is made by Morris that a mere 
majority in a single chamber is thus given the entire 
legislative power of the nation and thus has complete con¬ 
trol over its destinies; that the suspensive veto it not strong 
enough to oppose effectually any unwise misuse of this 
power; that should the Assembly attempt to encroach upon 
the executive power, such a veto would be but a weak 
weapon of defense in the hands of the latter, while no evils 
are to be apprehended from the absolute veto, which could 
not be used by the King to extend his own power, which 
the King would naturally not interpose to thwart legislation 
beneficial to the people, but which he would only employ 
to oppose attacks upon his constitutional authority. 

Article II provides that the legislative body cannot be 
dissolved by the King; that the representatives of the nation 
are inviolable; that they can be arrested for a criminal deed, 
but can only be prosecuted upon the consent of the legisla¬ 
tive body. 

Morris says that this article therefore provides that the 
Assembly shall exist and the persons of the members be 
held sacred as long as a majority may think proper. A 
political body vested with such supreme power over its own 
existence may conceive and execute plans hostile to the 
people or to the other political authorities, with no resource 


92 


The French Revolution. 


left the latter to bring about a termination of their session 
and the punishment of the guilty save in a general insurrec¬ 
tion or civil war. History assures us that absolute Assem¬ 
blies may be as dangerous and as tyrannical as absolute 
monarchs. 

Article III provides that the legislative body shall have 
the right of police in the place of its sessions and in the 
district around to the extent which it shall itself determine 
upon. It shall have the right of disposing of the forces 
which by its own consent are quartered in the city when it 
shall be in session; and the executive power is forbidden 
to introduce any military forces within the distance of 
60,000 yards from the Assembly, except by the demand or 
permission of the latter. 

The criticism of this article is that by giving the Assembly 
such extensive command over military forces in the place 
of its sessions, power is thereby given the Assembly with 
which it can at once control the people and the King. Some 
future Assembly may, therefore, if it will, effect a coup 
d’etat and assume larger powers than those delegated it by 
the Constitution. Means of resistance to such possible 
arbitrary proceedings would seem to be lacking both to 
the other State authorities and to the people as well. 

Article IV provides that the ministers and other agents of 
the executive authority may be criminally prosecuted by the 
Assembly and that no other public authority may prosecute 
them. Thus, in Morris’s view, should the Assembly be 
inclined to make encroachments upon ministerial and exec¬ 
utive authority, the ministers in opposing it would have 
much to fear, whereas by submission they would be safe 
from prosecution from any other source. 

Article V provides that the King may suspend adminis¬ 
trative officials; that he shall thereupon inform the Assem¬ 
bly of his act, and that the Assembly may remove or confirm 
this suspension. Here again, says Morris, the authority 
of the Executive over its own agents, over those who con¬ 
duct the administration, is rendered subordinate to that of 


Morris on the French Revolution. 


93 


the Assembly, executive power to the legislative. Here 
again the ministers will be at the mercy of the Assembly 
under circumstances of absolute dependence, and the ad¬ 
ministrators will seek rather to truckle to the Assembly, 
to please those whom they have to fear, than to perform 
their duty to the State. 

By Article VI the judicial power in the last resort is given 
to the Assembly, for an appeal may be taken from the 
highest established court, the Tribunal de Cassation, in which 
case the Assembly shall declare what the law is touching the 
question at issue. The Tribunal de Cassation is therefore 
obliged to settle the case in conformity with this decree. 
Hence it is the Assembly which is really giving judgment. 
“From hence it results,” says Morris, “that the people 
will no longer enjoy that security in their property and 
possessions to which they are entitled; for it may happen 
that many judgments of the Tribunal de Cassation will have 
been submitted to before the case supposed in the article 
[appeal] occurs, and that afterwards the Assembly may de¬ 
cree contradictorily to the tribunal, in which case the pre¬ 
ceding judgments will doubtless be questioned. More¬ 
over, as it is not to be supposed that a numerous Assembly 
will consist of persons skilled in legal discussions, it may 
happen that their explanatory decrees will affect the whole 
system of jurisprudence. There is reason to fear also that 
their decisions may be influenced by acts of intrigue or 
other motives. The Assembly having reserved to itself 
the sole right of accusing the judges for misconduct, timid 
or corrupt judges will decide in favor of those who have 
influence with the Assembly and against the poor and un¬ 
protected.” 

By Article VII the right to make war and treaties of 
peace is vested in the Assembly. In these matters the 
King is merely an agent, and an agent of an inferior kind, 
for he is not previously instructed, yet must act under v the 
constant uncertainty of being approved or disavowed. Yet 
in Morris’s view the King, by the very nature of his posi- 


94 


The French Revolution. 


tion, permanent and overlooking everything, is better quali¬ 
fied to judge of foreign politics, their ever-shifting combina¬ 
tions and complications, than are persons taken from the 
ordinary occupations of life. 

Recapitulating then, it appears, says Morris, that the 
legislative body has “ the right to make laws and decide in 
the last resort, both on the application and execution of 
them; that they have the supreme right of war, peace and 
treaties; that they have an existence dependent only on 
their own will, power to protect themselves from the pur¬ 
suit of justice, and the command of such force as they may 
think proper; of course all power not already vested in them 
is exposed to their assumption.” A body possessed of such 
vital and comprehensive powers may become dangerous 
and despotic. Morris condemned the placing of such vast 
authority, subject to such slight control, in a single group 
of men. 

In regard to the executive power the provisions of the 
constitution were as follows: 

Article I. To the King is delegated the care of watching 
the external safety of the kingdom, to maintain its rights 
and possessions. It belongs to the King to conclude and 
sign with all foreign powers all treaties of peace, of alliance, 
of commerce, and other conventions, which he shall judge 
necessary to the welfare of the State, under the ratification 
of the legislative body. 

Morris contends that by this article the right of war, 
peace and treaties being granted to the Assembly, the King 
must act not only in subordination to their will, but 
also in uncertainty as to what that will may be; that under 
such an arrangement treaties of offense and defense, of com¬ 
merce, of peace, become exceedingly difficult if not alto¬ 
gether impracticable; that so much power being given the 
Assembly in the determination of these conventions, the 
private, speculative, commercial or financial undertakings 
of individual members may play a most dangerous and per¬ 
nicious part in the determination of questions which should 


Morris on the French Revolution. 


95 


be settled on strictly public grounds, as, for instance, in the 
case of the majority having judged a war necessary, there 
might yet be many of the majority who would wish to delay 
it that particular speculations in which they might be 
interested might be previously arranged; similar selfish 
motives might lead to a continuation of war, though the 
restoration of peace might be possible and desirable for the 
nation at large. 

Article II. The King appoints two-thirds of the Rear 
Admirals, half of the Lieutenants-General, Field Marshals, 
Captains of Vessels, and Colonels of household troops; the 
third of Colonels and Lieutenant-Colonels, and the sixth 
of Lieutenants of vessels. 

Thus under the new organization of the military force, 
only a few of the superior grades of officers are to be filled 
by royal appointment, the rest are to be filled by election 
for definite terms. An army so organized, in Morris's esti¬ 
mation, can only with the greatest difficulty be kept up to a 
strict discipline; but if even this were attained, the army 
would be only too likely to become a dangerous instrument 
in the hands of its chiefs. For if the chiefs do not feel a 
dependence on the King, theymay more easily be led to fall 
in with the plans of some scheming general, and they will 
find less difficulty in winning over their troops to the exe¬ 
cution of these plans, for an army which has lost respect 
for its Prince will not long retain it for a popular Assembly. 
It had been complained that one of the abuses of the 
ancient regime was that the command of the troops was 
given almost exclusively to an established order. This, 
however, says the critique, had its good side, for the com¬ 
manders had every interest in supporting the constitution, 
and “ if the ancient regime had been unexceptionable in 
other respects this part would have been eminently useful, 
for it is certainly wise to interest the army in supporting 
the constitution.” Should a conspiracy ever be formed to 
subdue France by the arms of Frenchmen, the conspirators 
would much prefer to deal with officers of no property or 


96 


The French Revolution. 


connection, because such men would the more readily fol¬ 
low those who could tempt them with great hopes and ex¬ 
pectations; “whereas those who have property of their own 
and whose relations and connections share in the adminis¬ 
tration, will not risk the advantages they possess in the 
great game of revolutions.” 

Article III. Administrators are agents elected for a period 
by the people, to exercise under the superintendence of the 
King the administrative duties. The King has the right 
of overruling acts of administrators of departments con¬ 
trary to the laws or to orders issued to them, and can, in 
case of obstinate disobedience, or if they compromise by 
their acts the public safety or tranquillity, suspend them 
from their offices. He shall inform the legislative body 
thereof, and that body may remove or confirm the suspen¬ 
sion. 

This article relates to internal administration. It is con¬ 
ceded that administrators for strictly local concerns might 
well be elected by the people of the locality for short periods. 
Much local knowledge and minute attention will thus be 
usefully employed and an industrious and honest adminis¬ 
tration be probably obtained. But when the execution of 
the laws, the collection of taxes and the preservation of order 
are given over to such bodies there is danger of inefficiency 
and incompetence. For purposes of national administration 
there must be administrators responsible to the nation as a 
whole, not to particular localities. It should be in the 
power of the central government to execute its will inde¬ 
pendently without having to seek the co-operation of locally 
elected boards or administrators. It should have effective 
control of the entire internal national administrative ma¬ 
chinery. 

The judicial power of this new constitution is delegated 
to judges elected by the people for definite periods. Here, 
Morris says, a distinction should be made between inferior 
and superior judges. The former may be appointed for 
a limited period, but the latter should hold their offices 


Morris on the French Revolution. 


97 


during good behavior. Their impartiality is of supreme 
importance to every member of society. It appears desir¬ 
able from every point of view that they should not be 
named by popular election. Those who choose judges 
should not only have a just conception of the duty to be 
performed and of the talents requisite to the performance 
of them, but also an. interest in making a good choice. 
There is every reason to doubt this being the case at pop¬ 
ular elections. The elections may in large degree be gov¬ 
erned by intrigue and corruption, and if intrigue and cor¬ 
ruption succeed, first allegiance will be owed them on the 
part of the judges whom they place upon the bench. 

A few general observations are now made upon the na¬ 
ture of the government which the situation of France and 
the character of French manners demand. A high-toned 
monarchy is considered the only government possible for 
France, demanded alike by the physical situation of the 
country and the history and genius of the people. But 
there must be a sufficient barrier erected against the royal 
authority. This is not to be sought solely in a single pop¬ 
ular elective assembly. An hereditary Senate, whose mem¬ 
bers shall be great landholders, is advocated. It is by a just 
combination of the three (King, Senate, House of Depu¬ 
ties), where each having an absolute veto on the others, the 
particular interest of neither can prevail, that the general 
interest of the whole society will best be known and pur¬ 
sued, and France raised to that station of happiness and 
glory which nature seems to have intended for her. This 
form of government is no doubt open to objections, but 
human institutions mirror man, and it is vain to “ seek per¬ 
fections among imperfect beingsT 

The decree whereby the King is' prevented from choosing 
his ministers from the Assembly ought to be repealed. 
It is desirable that those be appointed to carry out the 
purposes of the constitution who have proved themselves' 
most ardent partisans in the national legislature. 

Such are the criticisms which Morris would have the 


98 


The French Revolution. 


King make upon the Constitution of 1791. They reveal 
his deep-rooted hostility to democracy; at the same time 
they reveal his insight into political affairs, his shrewdness 
and sagacity in the judgment of political institutions. For 
this constitution Morris had the most unfeigned contempt. 
He saw nothing in it but imperfections and impossibilities. 
He repeatedly declares it to be “ ridiculous,” “ good for 
nothing.” * 1 is a constitution without energy, without 
vitality, such that “ the Almighty Himself could not make 
it succeed without creating a new species of man.” Further, 
he says that the conviction is universal that it is inexecut¬ 
able, and he adds what is certainly startling and ominous, 

that “ the makers to a man condemn it.” 2 

, _ 

Though Morris had no faith in the constitution, though 
he condemned almost all of the legislation of the Constituent 
Assembly, considering it as a long series of huge political 
blunders, yet he saw the forces which were germinating 
beneath all these acts of presumption, audacity and inex¬ 
perience, and which he believed would in time make for a 
renovated and improved political life and for increased 
national prosperity. Condemning the decisions of the 
Assembly concerning the constitution, he was not, how¬ 
ever, blind to the value of much of its legislation as affecting 
the economic life of the nation. And here is an admirable 
illustration of his keen and discriminating critical ability. 
Here he is allied rather with Arthur Young than with Ed¬ 
mund Burke as a critic of the Revolution. In the very 
letter written to Washington, November 22nd, 1790, in 
which he bewails the condition of the country and cries out 
that one thing seems to be tolerably ascertained, namely, 
that “ the glorious opportunity is lost and (for this time at 
least) revolution has failed,” he discovers five reasons why 
increased national prosperity may be expected in the future. 
These are: (1) The abolition of those different rights and 
privileges formerly enjoyed by the provinces, which served 

11 —■■ ■ m 

1 Diary and Letters, I, 204, 238, 361, 440, 492, 508. 

2 Ibid. 457 - 





Morris on the French Revolution. 99 

to keep them asunder and prevented their perfect fusion 
into a single unified nation, leaving within the State so 
many partially independent communities with varied forms 
and methods of taxation, and with unjust hindrances placed 
upon the free communication of commerce. (2) The abo¬ 
lition of feudal tyranny, by which the tenure of real prop¬ 
erty is simplified, the value reduced to money, and rent more 
clearly ascertained. (3) The extension of the circle of com¬ 
merce to those vast possessions held by the Church in 
mortmain, and which were now thrown open to private 
individuals, whose greater enterprise would largely augment 
the wealth of the nation. (4) The destruction of a system 
of venal jurisprudence. (5) Above all, the promulgation 
and extension of those principles of liberty “ which will, I 
hope, remain to cheer the heart and cherish a nobleness of 
soul when the metaphysical froth and vapor shall have been 
blown away.” “ The awe of that spirit,” he continues, 
“ which has been thus raised will, I trust, excite in those 
who may hereafter possess authority, a proper moderation 
in its exercise and induce them to give to this people a real 
constitution of government fitted to the natural, moral, 
social and political state of their country. How and when 
these events may be brought about I know not. But I 
think from the chaos of opinion and the conflict of its jar¬ 
ring elements a new order will at length arise, which, 
though in some degree the child of chance, may not be less 
productive of human happiness than the forethought pro¬ 
visions of human speculation.” 1 

Morris saw the great dynamic force that was being gen¬ 
erated by all these tremendous changes, and he felt that 
this immense energy, fast accumulating and coming to a 
head, would soon seek an outlet and, finding it, would bring 
about great and beneficial changes. And here again his 
insight into this great drama was keener and profounder 
than was Burke’s. Burke thought at first that France 


1 Sparks’ Morris, II, 118. 




100 


The French Revolution. 


would be weakened by the Revolution. “ France,’’ says 
he, “is at this time in a political light to be considered as 
expunged out of the system of Europe. Whether she can 
ever appear in it again as a leading power is not easy to 
determine, but at present I consider France as not politically 
existing, and most assuredly it would take up much time 
to restore her to her former active existence.” At this very 
moment Morris was writing with cooler brain and clearer 
vision. “ In the midst, however, of all these confusions, 
what with confiscating the church property, selling the 
domains, curtailing pensions and destroying offices, but 
especially by that great liquidator of public debt, a paper 
currency, this nation is working its way to a new state of 
active energy which will, I think, be displayed as soon as 
a vigorous government shall establish itself.” 1 


THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. 

The Constituent Assembly was dissolved September 30, 
1791. The Constitution had been framed, accepted by the 
King, and promulgated. On October 1, 1791, the new 
Assembly, called the Legislative, came together and one 
of the most critical periods of the Revolution now began. 
Before its dissolution, a little less than a year later, the 
Assembly had launched decrees against the emigrants and 
the non-juring clergy, confiscating the property of the for¬ 
mer and banishing the latter, had declared war and pro¬ 
nounced the country in danger. The constitutional party 
in the Assembly had gone down before the radical Left. 
Jacobinism had triumphed, Royalty had succumbed and 
had been led a prisoner to the Temple, and the Revolution 
had entered upon its most angry and gloomy phase. The 
Old Regime was already gone, the reign of the bourgeoisie 
was approaching its end, and the sway of the Parisian popu¬ 
lace was about to begin. 

-Luring this period Morris seems to have played a partic- 


1 Diary and Letters, I, 383. 


c 

t ( 

( <. 
< t t 



Morris on the French Revolution. 


101 


ularly active role. His opinions on current politics were 
valued by the conservative party and his advice was often 
sought by them. He was assured that he stood high in the 
regard of the King and Queen. 1 He became actively im¬ 
plicated in devising a plan of escape for them, and was 
urged by the King to become the depository of his papers 
and money, which he did. 2 ' He suggested plans to combat 
the attacks of the republicans, dictated a philippic against 
the chef des republicans, seized every occasion to urge the 
formation of a good constitution, 3 and himself worked upon 
one which might secure “ the just rights of the nation under 
the government of a real King.” 4 He aided in seeking 
to rescue the finances of the country. 5 So high was the 
credit he enjoyed for political wisdom that, on one occa¬ 
sion, being absent in London, a friend sent his deputy to 
him from Paris to consult with him upon the advisability 
of taking a certain position in the Government. 6 7 He himself 
was even proposed as Minister of Foreign Affairs for the 
Kingdom of France. 

The flight of the King, frustrated at Varennes, had the 
effect of checking a popular movement just setting toward 
his support, occasioned by the excesses of the Constitu¬ 
ent Assembly, but now turned aside into republican chan¬ 
nels. 8 This was in June, 1791. The election campaign 
for the Legislative Assembly was soon to open. So good 
a weapon, unexpectedly falling into the hands of the ex¬ 
tremists, was skillfully used by them. Morris found the 
new Assembly deeply imbued with republican, or rather 
democratical opinions. 9 As a body it was more incompe¬ 
tent than the Constituent, for all members of the former 
Assembly were excluded from this, and thus political ex¬ 
perience, so painfully acquired, was lightly sacrificed. The 
Assembly began its labors by still further cheapening the 


1 Diary and Letters, I, 355 , 4 67, 481, 495 - 2 Ibid. 557 “ 56 i. 

3 Ibid. 468, 478. 4 Ibid. 485, 486. 5 Ibid. 467, 478. 

6 Ibid. 517. M. de Monciel. 

7 Ibid. 477. Proposed by M. de Molleville. 

8 Sparks’ Morris, II, 137 - 9 Diary and Letters, I, 457. 



102 


The French Revolution. 


dignity of the King by voting not to address him as “ Sire ” 
or “ Your Majesty.” “ Sire,” said one eloquent Jacobin, 
“signifies seigneur; it belonged to the feudal system which 
has ceased to exist. As for the term ‘ Majesty ’ it should 
only be employed in speaking of God and the people.” To 
be sure the vote was rescinded the very next day, yet the 
act had vividly revealed the temper of the new Assembly. 1 

The Assembly, in so fevered a state of mind, spouting 
forth such petty hostility toward royalty, could only be dealt 
with in one way. It must not be provoked, its suspicions 
must be allayed, if possible, irritation must be reduced 
to a minimum. The party with which it tended to clash 
must seek to divert its opposition by frankness and trust¬ 
worthiness in its actions. It must avoid all appearances of 
falseness and deception. It must not arouse the suspicion 
that the countenance seen is but a mask behind which craft 
and cunning are plotting. 

Such should have been the candid attitude of royalty 
toward the Assembly at this critical juncture. Morris 
thought that the King and Queen should not only faith¬ 
fully “ march in the line of the Constitution, but should 
not permit any person in their presence to jest on that 
subject, much less seriously to blame the ministry or their 
measures.” 2 The unwise actions of the Court had already 
compromised the throne on more than one occasion. Their 
underhanded schemes would be more dangerous to them¬ 
selves than the ill-will of their opponents—at least would 
only much intensify the latter. If the Court persist in such 
schemes they “ bet a certainty against an uncertainty,” 3 
said Morris. Let it abjure all crooked method, if it seeks 
its own salvation. It is not enough even that the ablest 
and most honest men unite to save the kingdom. “ The 


1 Mignet. History of Revolution, 115. Speech of Gaudet. 

Morris, Diary and Letters, I, 461: “ The members of the late 
Assembly are all high-toned in their reprehension of this day’s work 
of their successors, which is too little respectful towards the King. 

Are they indignant that any other should exceed them in marks 
of indignity? ” 2 Diary and Letters, I, 531. 3 Ibid. I, 474. 



Morris on the French Revolution. 


103 


King and Queen must give them their full confidence,” 
else it will all “ answer to no purpose.” 1 Yet of such an 
heroic common-sense policy the Court, despite the pointed 



oath to support the Constitution, was weak or unwise enough 
to let those approach him and enjoy his intimac y w hose 
opposition to the new regime was openly avowed. The 
Queen was yet more imprudent, and “ the Courts says 
Morris, “ was involved in a spirit of paltry intrigue, unwor¬ 
thy of anything above the rank of footmen and chamber¬ 
maids.” 2 3 Every one had his or her little project, and 
every little project had some abettors. Strong and manly 
counsels frightened and repelled these fruitless intriguers. 

Over against this unpopular court stood the Assembly, 
more radical than its predecessor. This Assembly was 
composed of a single chamber, and was under no control 
save that of public opinion and of a newly-framed constitu¬ 
tion, already widely condemned, and which had little more 
force than a series of “ paper maxims.” The people were 
becoming disappointed in the non-realization of the impos¬ 
sible prospects originally held out before them and were 
under slight restraint. The Constitution was a clumsy 



naphine^ 

| Morris believed that the only thing for the King to do 


now was to wait until a revulsion of feeling should take 



This governmental machine, becoming daily more 


vexatious and troublesome, and the excesses of a radical 
Legislature, would inevitably in the course of time reveal 


the weakness of the new regime and bring about a reaction 


in favor of royal authority. Such proved to be the case. 
The very day after the passage of the decrees concerning 
the manner of addressing the King they were rescinded, “ as 


they find the current of opinion in Paris to be against such 


measures.” 8 Early in October Morris says that the city 


1 Diary and Letters, I, 482. 2 Sparks’ Morris, II, 242. 

3 Diary and Letters, I, 461. Oct. 6, 1791. 



104 


The French Revolution. 


of Paris is becoming wonderfully fond of the King and has 
a thorough contempt for the Assembly, “ who are, in gen¬ 
eral, what used to be called in Philadelphia the blue stock¬ 
ings.” “ At the theater the people cry out continually ‘ vive 
le roi/ ‘ vive la reine/ ‘ vive la famille royale/ and when a 
‘ patriot ’ tries to get up a counter movement by crying 
‘ vive la nation ’ he is at once silenced.” 1 This was the very 
same people who were so bitter against him on his return 
from the flight. They might easily become so again. Yet 
for the moment the tide had turned. The Assembly, how¬ 
ever, kept on committing new follies every day; the finances 
went from bad to worse; the discontent became general and 
would have broken out to the discomfiture of the Gironde 
had it not been that the antipathy to the aristocrats was 
still too strong, and also that no good opportunity pre¬ 
sented itself. 2 The movement in favor of the King was 
accelerated by these excesses of the Assembly, alienating 
the support of the moderate men. Of this the hostile fac¬ 
tion were well aware, and for this reason they found it advis¬ 
able to drive everything to extremities out of the sheer 
necessity of self-preservation. This the republican faction 
proceeded to do. Morris says that they were led to those 
extremely radical measures which finally culminated in the 
declaration of war, by the fact that they saw their influence 
waning with the people, and the popular desire constantly 
increasing to return to a vigorous royal government, freed 
from abuses, yet strong enough to restore stability and 
order after the period of storm and stress through which 
the country had for three years been passing. 3 This desire 
for a return to peaceful and ordered life was, our critic says, 
becoming every day more general. Yet the radicals, seeing 
in this nothing but their own political death, threw them¬ 
selves with desperate energy against a movement so threat¬ 
ening and sought to turn it back. To assure their own 
political position a republic seemed better adapted than a 


1 Sparks’ Morris, II, 147. 


2 Ibid. 153. 


3 Ibid. 162. 



Morris on the French Revolution. 


105 


monarchy. Hence from the very opening of the Assembly 
a plan was formed among several of the members and others 
to overturn the Constitution which they had just sworn to 
observe, and to establish a republic in its place. “ This 
arose,” says Morris, “ in part from the desire of placing 
themselves better than they could otherwise do, and in part 
from a conviction that the system could not last and that 
they would have no share in the administration under a 
pure monarchy.” 1 The wisdom of these “ new-fangled 
statesmen,” as Morris calls them, was shown by the fact 
that Brissot, one of the leading Girondists and chairman 
of the Diplomatic Committee, actually proposed the ces¬ 
sion of Dunkirk and Calais to England as pledges of the 
fidelity of France to the engagements she might make in a 
treaty of alliance to be concluded between the two coun¬ 
tries. 2 Men so politically insane were capable of anything. 
They, the radicals, were unscrupulous, energetic and united. 
They were bold and were not embarrassed “ by legal or con¬ 
stitutional niceties.” 3 They would handle the postal ser¬ 
vice despotically. Every letter Morris received bore 
“ evident marks of patriotic curiosity.” 4 They would em¬ 
ploy agents, as indeed had been done ever since the outbreak 
of the Revolution, to foment a spirit of revolt in other 
nations, to agitate against established authorities. 5 Genet 
was the one they were soon to send to the country in 
the far-off West, and what turmoil was the young man des¬ 
tined to raise! Such were their party tactics. Even against 
a ruler so palsied and impotent as Louis XVI they assumed 
the aggressive. Their object was to bring matters to a 
simple question, the choice between a monarchy and a 
republic, after having loaded the former with all possible 
odium. They seized every occasion to pass decrees which 
were popular but unconstitutional. If the King should 
exercise his right of veto he would be accused of “ wishing 
a counter-revolution,” whereupon an appeal would be made 


1 Sparks’ Morris, II, 241, 242. 
4 Ibid. 151. 


1 Ibid. 162. 3 Ibid. 196. 

5 Diary and Letters, I, 522. 



106 


The French Revolution. 


to the people, the lower classes, over whom the extremists’ 
influence was great. If the King should assent, his position 
would be rendered so much the more servile and intoler¬ 
able; he would become so much the more helpless, his 
natural defenders and protectors fewer. Such was the policy 
of the Gironde, as Morris portrays it, and it was carried 
out.to the letter. 

t The royal power finally went under in the war which the 
Assembly compelled it to proclaim. M. Taine maintains that 
this war, which was declared April 20, 1792* an d which 
ravaged Europe till the downfall of Napoleon, was planned 
and caused by the Left of the Legislative Assembly, con¬ 
sisting mainly of Girondists, and says that if it may be 
ascribed to the efforts of any one man, that man was 
BrissotA. 

Though Morris makes but few references to this, it is 
evident that he believed the Assembly to be the aggressor^ 
“ The Assembly,” he says, “ commits every day new follies, 
and if this unhappy country be not plunged anew into the 
horrors of despotism, it is not their fault. They have lately 
made a master stroke to that effect. They have resolved 
to attack their neighbors unless they disperse the assem¬ 
blies of French emigrants who have taken refuge in their 
dominions.” 2 This he regarded as a pretext for hostilities 
without itself being a distinct violation of the law of nations. 
This was in December, 1791. The war was formally de¬ 
clared the 20th of April, 1792. As early as July, 1790, 
Morris believed such a war inevitable, and that, too, for the 
very reason he assigned later, namely, the necessity by which 
the revolutionists would be driven to it as a means of self- 
preservation. But it was not till the end of 1791 that the 
agitation for it became general and emphatic. Then many 
elements other than this original one entered into the move¬ 
ment and gave it added impetus^. 


1 Taine. French Revolution, II, 99. 
1 Sparks’ Morris, II, 152. 



Morris on the French Revolution. 


107 


The reasons for this are given in a letter to Washington, 
dated February 4, 1792. f Every member of the Ministry,” 
he says, “ is convinced tnat>the Constitution is good for 
nothing, and, unfortunately, there are many of them so 
indiscreet as to disclose that opinion, when at the same 
time they declare their determination to support and exe¬ 
cute it, which is, in fact, the only rational mode (which now 
remains) of pointing out its defects. It is unnecessary to 
tell you that some members of the National Assembly are 
in the pay of England, for that you will easily suppose. 
Brissot de Warville is said to be one of them, and indeed 
(whether from corrupt or other motives I know not) his 
conduct tends to injure his own country and benefit that of 
their ancient foes in a very eminent degree. The situation 
of their finances is such that every considerate person sees 
the impossibility of going on in the present way, and as a 
change of system after so many pompous declarations is 
not a little dangerous among people so wild and ungov¬ 
erned, it has appeared to them that a war would furnish 
some plausible pretext for measures of a very decisive na¬ 
ture, in which state necessity will be urged in the teeth of 
policy, humanity and justice. Others consider a war as 
a means of obtaining for the government the eventual com¬ 
mand of a disciplined military force, which may be used 
to restore order; in other words, to bring back despotism, 
and then they expect that the King will give the nation a 
constitution which they have neither the wisdom to form 
nor the virtue to adopt for themselves. 

“ Others, again, suppose that in case of a war there will 
be such a leaning from the King towards his brother, from 
the Queen towards the Emperor, from the nobility (the 
very few) who remain towards the mass of their brethren 
who have left the kingdom, that the bad success ultimately 
to arise from the opposition of undisciplined mobs to reg¬ 
ular armies may be easily imputed to treasonable counsels, 
and the people be prevailed on to banish them altogether 
and set up a Federal Republic. Lastly, the aristocrats, 


108 


The French Revolution. 


burning with the lust of vengeance, most of them poor and 
all of them proud, hope that, supported by foreign armies, 
they shall be able to return victorious and re-establish that 
species of despotism most suited to their own cupidity. It 
happens, therefore, that the whole nation, though with dif¬ 
ferent views, are desirous of war; for it is proper, in such 
general statements, to take in the spirit of the country, 
which has ever been warlike.” 1 

Yet Morris did not believe France ready for it. He was 
never sanguine as to the outcome of the war. The odds, 
he thought, were far too great against her. If she were 
under a good government and at peace with England, then 
indeed she probably “ could set Europe at defiance/’ but 
neither of these conditions existed. France, in his opin¬ 
ion, was no more fit for great exertion than a diseased 
man would be. “ You have no idea, my dear sir, of a 
society so loosely organized,” fie says in a letter to Wash¬ 
ington, December 27, 1791. “America at the worst of 
times was much better, because at least the criminal law 
was executed, not to mention the mildness of our manners. 
My letter predicting their present situation may, perhaps, 
have appeared like the wanderings of exaggerated fancy, 
but, believe me, they are within the coldest limits of truth. 
Their army is undisciplined to a degree you can hardly 
conceive. Already great numbers desert to what they 
expect will become the enemy. Their Garde Nationale, 
who have turned out as volunteers, are in many instances 
that corrupted scum of overgrown populations of which 
large cities purge themselves, and which, without consti¬ 
tution to support the fatigues, or courage to encounter the 
perils of war, have every vice and every disease which can 
render them the scourge of their friends and the scoff 
of their foes. 

“ The finances are deplorably bad. The discontent is 
general, but it does not break out, partly because the antip- 


1 Diary and Letters, I, 508-509. 



Morris on the French Revolution. 


109 


athy to the aristocrats and the fear of their tyranny still 
operates, and partly because no safe opportunity offers. 
Every one is bewildered in his meditations as to the event, 
and, like a fleet at anchor in a fog, no one will set sail for fear 
of running foul. . . . The first success on either side will 
decide the opinions of a vast number who have, in fact, 
no opinion, but only the virtuous determination to adhere to 
the strongest party, and you may rely on it that if the 
enemy be tolerably successful, a person who shall visit this 
country two years hence will inquire with astonishment by 
what means a nation which in the year of 1788 was devoted 
to its kings, became in 1790 unanimous in throwing off 
their authority, and in 1792 as unanimous in submitting to 
it.” 1 And later he says, “ The war in which they are 
engaged furnishes a dreary prospect; there seems to be 
but one ground to hope for success, which is, that improb¬ 
able things are those which usually happen.” 2 3 * 

The condition of the army was indeed chaotic. The levies 
had been unsatisfactory, the recruits being raw, undisci¬ 
plined and incompetent. But this was destined to melt 
away with the lapse of time and their growing experience. 
The opening campaign in the summer of 1792 was disas¬ 
trous, but in the fall of that year the French were victorious 
and won the skirmish of Valmy, important in a moral, if 
not in a military, sense. Yet Morris was not inclined to 
believe this a sign of future successes. Writing September 
22, 1792, he doubted if France would make as great efforts 
in the spring as she was then making. “ The character of 
nations must be taken into consideration in all political 
questions, and that of France has ever been an enthusiastic 
inconstancy. They soon get tired of a thing. They adopt 
without examination and reject without sufficient cause.” 5 
The doubt was ill-founded. It was the next year that the 
Revolution, under the bold leadership of the Committee of 


1 Diary and Letters, I, 493-494- ’ Ibid. 533- May 14, I79 2 - 

3 Ibid. Morris’s prophecies in regard to military events were not 

as successful as his political predictions. 



no 


The French Revolution. 


Public Safety, made its most gigantic exertions and won its 
most signal triumphs. 

, Early in 1791 Morris seems to have become convinced 
tfeat France would be inevitably driven into the arms of 
despotism—a conviction that never left him afterward. He 
saw the State disorganized, society completely disjointed, 
and a confused and abnormal state of affairs generally, and 
he believed that out of this anarchy, despotism would 
sooner or later emerge to check it. “ France,’’ he says, 
“ in on the highroad to despotism. They have made the 
common mistake that to enjoy liberty it is only necessary 
to destroy authority, and the common consequence results, 
viz. that the most ardent advocates for the Revolution 
begin now to wish and pray, and even cry out, for the estab¬ 
lishment of despotic power as the only means of securing 
the lives and property of the people. This is terrible.^ 

The great mass of the people, he found, were already 
tired of the Revolution and would gladly accept pure 
despotism if it should give this security and were not accom¬ 
panied with the return of their ancient oppressive institu¬ 
tions. Such was the state of the mind of France as the war 
impended. 1 2 “ The best picture I can give of the French 
nation,” says Morris, “ is that of cattle before a thunder¬ 
storm.” 

Meanwhile the activity of the Jacobins constantly in¬ 
creased as they pushed on irresistibly to the 10th of 
August. The state of uncertainty and distress became 
daily more acute. In a second letter to Jefferson, written 
June 17, Morris says: j On the whole, sir, we stand on a 
vast volcano. We feel it tremble, we hear it roar, but 
how and when and where it will burst, and who may be 
destroyed by its eruptions, it is beyond the pen of mortal 
foresight to discover. ... It is in contemplation to make 
a serious effort against that faction [the Jacobin] in favor 
of the Constitution, and M. de Lafayette will begin the 


1 May 14, 1792. 

2 Diary and Letters, I, 537 - 543 - Letter to Jefferson, June 10, 1792. 



Morris on the French Revolution. 


Ill 


attack. I own to you that I am not sanguine as to the 
success. . . . Thus while a great part of the nation is desir¬ 
ous of overturning the present government in order to re¬ 
store the ancient form, and while another part, still more 
dangerous from position and numbers, are desirous of in¬ 
troducing the form of a federal republic, the moderate men, 
attacked on all sides, have to contend alone against an im¬ 
mense force. I cannot go on with the picture, for my 
heart bleeds when I reflect that the finest opportunity which 
ever presented itself for establishing the rights of mankind 
throughout the civilized world is perhaps lost, and forever/’ 

Soon came the 20th of June, and the entry in Morris’s 
diary for that day runs as follows: “ There is a great move¬ 
ment in Paris and the guard is paraded. While I am writ¬ 
ing the mob and the National Guards are marching and 
countermarching under my windo.ws. I don’t think they 
will come to blows. Dine with the Baron de Blome; after 
dinner we learn that the deputation of the Faubourgs has 
forced the unresisting guard, filled the chateau, and grossly 
insulted the King and Queen. His Majesty has put on 
the bonnet rouge, but he persists in refusing to sanction the 
decrees. ‘ This is neither the form in which it ought to be 
demanded of me, nor the moment to obtain it,’ he calmly 
told the surging crowd of angry people who pressed upon 
him, almost to the point of suffocation. . . . The Constitu¬ 
tion has this day, I think, given its last groan.” 1 

Then came the 10th of August, and Morris wrote a few 
days later to Thomas Pinckney, our minister at London, in 
this vein: “We have had here within the last few days 
some serious scenes, at which I am not surprised, because 
I foresaw not only a struggle between the two corps which 
the Constitution had organized, viz., the executive, so- 
called, and the legislative, but I was convinced the latter 
would get the better. It is nevertheless a painful reflection 
that one of the finest countries in the world should be so 


1 Diary and Letters, I, 546. 



112 


The French Revolution. 


cruelly torn to pieces. The storm which lately raged is 
a little subdued, but the winds must soon rise again, per¬ 
haps from the same quarter, perhaps from another; but 
that is of little consequence. A man attached to his fellow- 
men must see with distress the woes they suffer, but an 
American has a stronger sympathy with this country than 
any other observer, and nourished as he is in the bosom 
of liberty, he cannot but be deeply affected to see that in 
almost any event this struggle must terminate in des¬ 
potism.” 1 


THE NATIONAL CONVENTION. 

The Convention met on the 20th of September, 1792. 
At its first session it decreed the abolition of the monarchy 
and declared France a republic. 

From the first Morris had believed that the constitution, 
framed and adopted by the Constituent Assembly, being 
ill adapted to the France of the 18th century, possessed few 
elements of stability. He was not, then, surprised at its be¬ 
ing overturned. “ That,” he says, “ is a natural accident 
to a thing which was all sail and no ballast.” 2 

This constitution had created an executive without power, 
who was, however, rendered responsible for events. It had 
lodged the entire power of the State in a single chamber 
of deputies who were under no control save that of public 
opinion, which was at that time a thing most variable. 
The populace, “ a thing which, thank God,” says Morris, 
“ is unknown in America,” intoxicated with the feeling of 
its own. importance with which it had for three years been 
daily flattered, and disappointed in the non-realization of the 
golden prospects originally held out to it, was under slight 
restraint. 3 From these defects of the constitution and this 
uneasy state of the popular mind arose the revolution of 
the 10th of August and the following days. The executive 


1 Diary and Letters, I, 571-572. 


2 Ibid. 603. 


8 Ibid. 600. 



Morris on the French Revolution. 


113 


fell inevitably into the power of the legislature, and this into 
the hands of such men as could influence the populace. 
The constitution plainly could not last. Yet the establish¬ 
ment of a republic was unexpected. It was no great na¬ 
tional movement that brought it about, but simply popular 
pressure at Paris. 

“ Nothing new this day,” so runs the entry for September 
21, 1792, “ except that the Convention has met and de¬ 
clared they will have no King in France.” In writing the 
next day to Washington, Morris says, “ You will have seen 
that the King is accused of high crimes and misdemeanors, 
but I verily believe that he wished sincerely for this nation 
the enjoyment of the utmost degree of liberty which the 
situation of circumstances will permit. What may be his 
fate God only knows, but history informs us that the pas¬ 
sage of dethroned monarchs is short from the prison to the 
grave.” The republic was proclaimed and the Year One 
began. Morris shows the different factions, Gironde and 
Mountain, trying to persuade the people that it and not 
the other is the author of the new government. The Re¬ 
public came in quite suddenly and unexpectedly, but was 
apparently very popular. Though the people found them¬ 
selves possessed of it “by a kind of magic, or at least a 
sleight of hand,” they were nevertheless “ as fond of it as if 
it were their own offspring.” 1 Writing October 23, 1792, 
Morris says: “With respect to the present temper of the 
people of this country, I am clearly of opinion the decided 
effective majority is now for the Republic^ What may be 
the temper and opinion six months hence no present sensi¬ 
ble man would, I think, take upon him to declare, much less 
depend on the form of government which shall be pre¬ 
sented by the Convention. If vigorous, it is very problem¬ 
atical whether the departments will adopt it, unless com¬ 
pelled by a sense of impending exterior danger; if feeble, 
it is (humanly speaking) impossible that it can control the 
effervescent temper of this people, and that appears suffl- 


1 Diary and Letters, I, 596. 



114 


The French Revolution. 


ciently by the fate of the late constitution. Whether they 
will be able to strike out that happy mean which secures 
all the liberty which circumstances will admit of, combined 
with all the energy which the same circumstances require; 
whether they can establish an authority which does not 
exist, as a substitute (and always a dangerous substitute) 
for that respect which cannot be restored after so much 
has been done to destroy it; whether, in crying down and 
even ridiculing religion, they will be able, on the tottering 
and uncertain base of metaphysic philosophy, to establish 
a solid edifice of morals—these are questions which time 
may solve.” 1 

Morris’s faith in the wisdom of Frenchmen had long 
since vanished?^ Apparently the national character, which 
might appeal to him in ordinary times, showed to little ad¬ 
vantage in the stormy times of revolution. Ever since the 
opening of the States-General he had seen the series of 
political blunders lengthen day by day, increasing the gen¬ 
eral havoc rather than solving the great problem of a freer 
and happier life for France. “ Since I have been in this 
country,” he writes toward the close of 1792, “ I have seen 
the worship of many idols, and but little of the true God; 
I have seen many of these idols broken, and some of them 
beaten to dust. I have seen the late constitution, in one 
short year, admired as a stupendous monument of human 
wisdom and ridiculed as an egregious production of folly 
and vice.” 2 

From this time onward Morris regarded the different 
measures taken in the Revolution as necessary ephemeral. 3 


1 Diary and Letters, I, 598. 2 Ibid. II, 7. Dec. 3, 1792. 

3 “ But I do not greatly indulge the flattering illusions of hope, 
because I do not yet perceive that reformation of morals without 
which liberty is but an empty sound. My heart has many sinister 
bodings, and reason would strive in vain to dispel the gloom which 
always thickens where she exerts her sway.” II, 8. Again, com¬ 
paring America and France, he says: “ Such is the immense dif¬ 
ference between a country which has morals and one which is 
corrupted. The former has everything to hope, and the latter 
everything to fear.” II, 60. 



Morris on the French Revolution. 


115 


He thought France must undergo many more shocks be¬ 
fore finding order again. 1 “The character of France,” he 
says, “ has ever been an enthusiastic inconstancy. They 
soon get tired of a thing. They adopt without examina¬ 
tion and reject without sufficient cause. They are now 
agog with their republic and may perhaps-adopt some form 
of government with a huzza; but that they will adopt a 
good form, or, having adopted, adhere to it, is what I do 
not believe.” 2 

Henceforth he chronicles events much less fully, and 
mainly as they may affect international complications about 
which, as Minister of the United States, he is obliged to 
keep his home government informed. His criticisms be¬ 
come less general and are concerned more with the details 
of diplomacy. Since the definite accession of the radicals 
to power in the autumn of 1792 he is thrown out of that 
close contact with those active in the Revolution which 
he had up to this time preserved, and cannot as heretofore 
“ peep behind the scenes.” He watches the little politicians 
play “ their peddling parts ” and pass on. He sees different 
parties fade away “ like the shadows of a magic lantern.” 
Everything is in a constant flux. Nothing is stable, noth¬ 
ing certain; everything changes from day to day. The 
Revolution increases in intensity. Waves of hatred break 
upon one party, sweeping it away, and fall back, only later 
to dash with redoubled force against another. “ La roue 
immense,” he writes, “ a laquelle est attache le sort de 
cet empire, ecrase dans sa marche ceux qui l’ont fait mou- 
voir. Personne n’est assez forte pour Tarreter quoique 
chacun se flatte de pouvoir la faire aller a son gre, mais ils 
se trompent tous.” 8 

From the opening of the Convention the Jacobin Club 
raged as furiously against the new government as it had 

1 In 1795 he wrote Madame de Nadaillac: “II me semble que 
votre malheureuse patrie doit subir encore plusieurs revolutions 
avant qu’on ne puisse compter sur un ordre quelconque.” II, 85. 

2 Sparks’ Morris, II, 230. 3 Diary and Letters, II, 21. 




116 


The French Revolution. 


against its predecessor. It now came to be a life and 
death struggle between the Girondists and the Jacobins. 
Morris notes that luckily for the Jacobins their leaders are 
“ daring and determined,” while those of their adversaries 
are many of them timid. 1 At first the majority has had 
rather the advantage, though frequently compelled by the 
Jacobins to decree what they do not wish. An event of 
immense national importance as well as decisive of the 
fate of the Gironde and the future supremacy of the Con¬ 
vention, was the trial of the King. “ To a person less inti¬ 
mately acquainted than you are with the history of human 
affairs,” Morris writes Jefferson, “ it would seem strange 
that the mildest monarch who ever filled the French throne, 
one who is precipitated from it precisely because he would 
not adopt the harsh measures of his predecessors, a man 
whom none could charge with a criminal act, should be 
prosecuted as one of the most nefarious tyrants that ever 
disgraced the annals of human nature—that he, Louis XVI, 
should be prosecuted even to death. Yet such is the fact.” 
Morris thought he would probably be condemned and for 
these reasons: (i) The majority of the Assembly, in order 
to preserve themselves, thought it necessary to dethrone the 
King, abolish monarchy and establish a republic. To do 
this it was necessary to throw all the odium they could 
upon the King and arouse the nation against him. This 
was easily accomplished. Having possession of his papers, 
they attained their object by garbling, suppressing and 
mutilating the evidence. They raised a terrible storm 
against the unhappy King, succeeded in sweeping him from 
the throne and brought in the republic. They were then in 
a difficult pass themselves. They did not know what to 
do with him. They feared to condemn him or to acquit 
him, but were impelled to destroy him whom they held 
captive. The Jacobin party were violently against the 
King, and Morris says that the monarchical and aristo- 


1 Diary and Letters, II, 9. 



Morris on the French Revolution. 


117 


cratic parties also desired his death, believing “ that such a 
catastrophe would shock the national feelings, awaken 
their hereditary attachment and turn into channels of loy¬ 
alty the impetuous tide of opinion” 1 “Thus he has be¬ 
come,” he adds, “the common object of hatred to all 
parties because he has never been the decided patron of 
any one.” This is a startling view of the matter, but Morris 
w^sjin a position to know. 

King was sentenced and beheaded on the 21st of 
January, 1793. Apropos of this, Morris wrote to Jefferson: 
“ The late King of this country has been publicly executed. 
He died in a manner becoming his dignity. Mounting the 
scaffold, he expressed anew his forgiveness of those who 
persecuted him and a prayer that his deluded people might 
be benefited by his death. On the scaffold he attempted 
to speak, but the commanding officer, Santerre, ordered the 
drums to beat. The King made two unavailing efforts, but 
with the same bad success. The executioners threw him 
down and were in such haste as to let the axe fall before his 
neck was properly placed, so that he was mangled. . . . 
The greatest care was taken to prevent a concourse of 
people. This proves a conviction that the majority was not 
favorable to that severe measure. In fact the great mass 
of the people mourned the fate of their unhappy prince. I 
have seen grief such as for the untimely death of a beloved 
parent. Everything wears an appearance of solemnity 
which is awfully distressing. 7 ^ 2 

From now on life in Paris becomes more and more diffi¬ 
cult and painful. Morris complains that it is impossible to 
act effectively with the ever shifting and varying parties. 
To stand well with any one of them would involve such a 
complete abdication of all moderation and diplomatic wis¬ 
dom that it would be wrong. The reign of arbitrary will 
now becomes supreme. Morris, minister of a friendly na¬ 
tion, is arrested in the street and not allowed to pass the 


1 Diary and Letters, II, 10 . 


2 Ibid. 31 - 32 . 



118 


The French Revolution. 


barrier of the town. Servants of the government attempt 
to search his house for papers and persons who are sus¬ 
pected with hiding there. He is insulted by the chairman 
of the Diplomatic Committee. He protests, demands an 
apology and receives one. But, as he writes, “ The path 
of life in Paris is no longer strewed with roses.” Morris 
was the only foreign minister to remain in Paris after the 
ioth of August. He writes a friend that the sky is becom¬ 
ing blacker and blacker. The prospect is dreadful. Ex¬ 
ternal dangers are threatening, but worst of all is the dis¬ 
organized state of the internal government. “ In short,” 
says he, “the fragment of the present system is erected in 
a quagmire.” 1 

The Gironde is finally torn down by the violent Jacobins. 

' • • 

f The reason being,” says Morris, “ that they possess only 
‘ parole energy/ ” 1 Then the Reign of Terror begins. 
October 18, 1793, Morris writes Washington: “The present 
government is evidently a despotism both in principle and 
practice. The Convention now consists of only a part of 
those who were chosen to frame a constitution. These, 
after putting under arrest their fellows, claim all power and 
have delegated the greater part of it to a Committee of 
Safety. You will observe that one of the ordinary meas¬ 
ures of government is to send out commissioners with un¬ 
limited authority. They are invested with power to remove 
officers chosen by the people and put others in their places. 
This power as well as that of imprisoning on suspicion is 
liberally exercised. The Revolutionary Tribunal, estab¬ 
lished here to judge on general principles, gives unbounded 
scope to will. It is an emphatical phrase in fashion among 
the patriots that terror is the order of the day.” * 3 This 
Reign of Terror stands out vividly from the very few 
references to it made by Morris. Writing of the Septem¬ 
ber massacres he says that hundreds of the best people of 
the country have been destroyed without form of trial and 


1 Diary and Letters, II, 37. Feb. 1793. 2 Sparks’ Morris, II, 336. 

3 Diary and Letters, II, 53. 



Morris on the French Revolution. 


119 


“ their bodies thrown like dead dogs into the first hole that 
offered.” 1 “ I write,*’ he adds, “ from a place deserted by 

its former inhabitants, where in almost every countenance 
you can mark the traces of present woe and of dismal 
forebodings.” 

The entries in the famous diary become less and less 
frequent and less and less significant. Soon Morris’s mis¬ 
sion terminates and he proceeds slowly homeward, spend¬ 
ing several years by the way in visiting his friends in the 
different countries of Europe. 


1 Diary and Letters, II, 15. 



JAMES MONROE ON THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. 


JAMES MONROE. 

To the pessimist succeeded the optimist, to the critic the 
enthusiast. /When the United States Government, greatly 
irritated, requested the recall of the troublesome Genet, 
France acceded, but asked in turn to be relieved of MorrisA 
For reasons of policy the request was granted, though 
Washington took occasion to assure Morris of his con¬ 
tinued confidence in him and his satisfaction with his con¬ 
duct. Then was precipitated an episode famous in our dip¬ 
lomatic history. (The appointment of Monroe, an ardent 
admirer of France and her Revolution, to the place left 
vacant by the withdrawal of Morris, intended as an act 
of conciliatory good will, speedily proved a most unhappy 
mistake, and became in the eyes of the Federalists the 
great scandal of the day: Into this unfortunate and tan¬ 
gled affair it is no part of our purpose to enter here. 
Monroe’s mission to France is a part of our general politi¬ 
cal history and has been abundantly discussed by histor¬ 
ians. ' Suffice it to say that he arrived in France soon 
after the fall of Robespierre, the Thermidorians being in 
the ascendant, and that, though known for his warm attach¬ 
ment to France, the Committee of Public Safety hesitated 
to receive him. He waited several days, making no head¬ 
way. “Not another civilized nation upon earth,” says 
Mr. Adams, “ had a recognized representative in France at 
that time.” 1 Monroe then, in great and just impatience, 
sought some other method of recognition. He applied 
directly to the Convention to appoint a date for his recep- 


1 Gilman’s Monroe, 45. 




Monroe on the French Revolution. 


121 


tion. The Convention passed the necessary decree and 
named August 15, 1794, as the day of reception. Then 
occurred the famous “ pageant/' in the fever of which 
Monroe went so far to commit his country to obligations 
toward France which she did not desire. In a speech of 
great fervor he threw aside all reserve and pleased the ears 
of the Convention and no doubt expressed his own con¬ 
victions. “ Republics/’ he said, “ should approach near to 
each other. In many respects they have all the same 
interest; but this is more especially the case with the Amer¬ 
ican and French republics. Their governments are simi¬ 
lar; they both cherish the same principles and rest on the 
same basis, the equal and unalienable rights of man. The 
recollection, too, of common dangers and difficulties will 
increase their harmony and cement their union. America 
had her day of oppression, difficulty and war; but her sons 
were virtuous and brave, and the storm which long clouded 
her political horizon has passed, and left them in the enjoy¬ 
ment of peace, liberty and independence. ; France, our 
ally and our friend, and who aided in the contest, has now 
embarked in the same noble career; and I am happy to 
add, that whilst the fortitude, magnanimity and heroic 
valor of her troops command the admiration and applause 
of the astonished world, the wisdom and firmness of her 
councils unite equally in securing the happiest result. 

“ America is not an .unfeeling spectator of your affairs 
at this present crisis. I lay before you in the declarations 
of every department of our government—declarations 
which are founded in the affections of the citizens at large— 
the most decided proof of her sincere attachment to the 
liberty, prosperity and happiness of the French Republic.” 

The President of the Assembly, Merlin de Douai, re¬ 
sponded with feeling and with a shrewd eye to the conse¬ 
quences. “The French people,” he said, “have not for¬ 
gotten that it is to the American people that they owe 
their initiation into the cause of liberty. It was in admiring 
the sublime insurrection of the American people against 


122 


The French Revolution. 


Britain, once so haughty, but now so humbled; it was in 
themselves taking arms to second your courageous efforts, 
and in cementing your independence by the blood of our 
brave warriors, that the French people learned in their turn 
to break the scepter of tyranny, and to elevate the statue of 
Liberty on the wreck of a throne supported during fourteen 
centuries only by crimes and by corruption. 

“ How, then, should it happen that we should not be 
friends? Why should we not associate the mutual means 
of prosperity that our commerce and navigation offer to 
two peoples freed by each other? But it is not merely a 
diplomatic alliance; it is the sweetest, the most frank fra¬ 
ternity that must at the same time unite us, that, indeed, 
already unites us; and this union shall be forever indissolu¬ 
ble, as it will be forever the dread of tyrants, the safeguard 
of the liberty of the world, and the preserver of all the social 
and philanthropic virtues! 

“In bringing to us, Citizen, the pledge of this union so 
dear to us, you could not fail to be received with the live¬ 
liest emotions. Five years ago, a usurper of the sover¬ 
eignty of the people would have received you with the pride 
which alone belongs to vice, thinking it much to have given 
to the minister of a free people some tokens of an insolent 
protection. But to-day, the sovereign people themselves, 
by the organ of their faithful representatives, receive you; 
and you see the tenderness, the effusion of soul that ac¬ 
companies this simple and touching ceremony! I am im¬ 
patient to give you the fraternal embrace which I am 
ordered to give in the name of the French people. Come 
and receive it in the name of the American people, and 
let this spectacle complete the annihilation of an impious 
coalition of tyrants! 

Then Monroe stepped forward and received the embrace; 
the Convention ordered that the speeches of the day be 
printed in the two languages, “ French and American,” 
and that the flags of the two countries be displayed inter¬ 
twined in the hall of the Convention, “ in sign of the union 
and eternal fraternity of the two peoples.” A 


Monroe on the French Revolution. 


123 


John Quincy Adams was then in Europe entering upon 
his diplomatic career. He had already begun that monu¬ 
mental Diary, and one of his earliest entries is dated Amster¬ 
dam, January 18, 1795, and describes an official call that 
he made upon the “ Representans du peuple Franqais.” 
They talked about official business; then other subjects 
were touched upon,—Washington, Jay’s Treaty, and so on. 
Finally they came to speak of Mr. Monroe’s reception by 
the National Convention. “ ‘ Parbleu,’ said one, ‘ it was a 
scene attendrissante.’ It was ‘ nne des plus fameuses seances ’ 
of the Convention. There were more than ten thousand 
persons present. 4 He shed tears, he was so much affected. 
I saw him cry.’ ‘Oh!’ said another, ‘ e’etait aussi bien de 
quoi faire pleurer.’ ” 1 

This bit of melodrama was ominous and the omen was 
fulfilled. Monroe was no cool and neutral diplomat. His 
actions were criticised by the home government, whom he 
criticised in turn. The trouble grew until he was recalled 
in 1796 in a fury that sought outlet in the publication of 
a pamphlet of five hundred pages, entitled “ A View of the 
Conduct of the Executive,” in which he printed his instruc¬ 
tions, correspondence with the French and American Gov¬ 
ernments, and speeches. “ It remains to this day, says 
Mr. Gilman, “ a most extraordinary volume, full of enter¬ 
taining and instructive lessons to young diplomatists.” 2 
It may be of interest to the diplomatist. It is of less, though 


1 Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, by C. F. Adams, I, 62. 

2 The “View” aroused the wrath of the Federalists, and counter 
pamphlets filled the air. Perhaps the most notable of these was 
one published anonymously by Alexander Hamilton. Scipio’s 
Reflections on Monroe’s View. Boston, 1798. 

Monroe reached Paris, August 2, 1794. He took leave of the 
Directory, January 1, 1797. His recall was represented by the repub¬ 
licans as simply another of the treasonable machinations of the 
monarchy men. Elbridge Gerry, writing to Monroe, says, after 
speaking of the recall* “I am convinced that there has been a 
deep system, at home and abroad, to disgrace republicanism and 
republican officers, ar d that the late President has unfortunately 
confided too much ir persons of this disposition.” April 4, 1797. 
Some Letters of Elbridge Gerry, by W. C. Ford. 



124 


The French Revolution. 


of some value to the student of the French Revolution. In 
the letters here published Monroe has much to say of the 
events taking place in France. They lack the discrimina¬ 
tion of Jefferson, the insight and cool analytical quality of 
Morris. Uniformly favorable, they impress one with super¬ 
ficiality. There are none of those luminous descriptions of 
French conditions and French life that make the pages of 
his two predecessors so significant. They lack the larger 
view of things that Jefferson often had, however much he 
might be wedded to his idols, and they possess none of that 
racy, vivid, dramatic form that was the natural mode of 
expression with Morris. Yet, although of minor interest, 
they still merit some examination. 1 

In his first letter to the Secretary of State, dated August 
io, 1794, Monroe says: “I heard at Havre of the crimes 
and execution of Robespierre, St. Just, Couthon and others 
of that party. . . . That Robespierre and his associates 
merited their fate is a position to which every one assents. 
It was proclaimed by the countenances and voices of all 
whom I met and conversed with from Havre to Paris. In 
the latter place where the oppression was heaviest, the 
people seem to be relieved from a burden which had be¬ 
come insupportable. It is generally agreed that, from the 
period of Danton’s fall, Robespierre had amassed in his 
own hands all the powers of the government and con¬ 
trolled every department in all its operations. It was his 
spirit which ruled the Committee of Public Safety, the Con¬ 
vention, and the Revolutionary Tribunal. . . . Robespierre, 
therefore, had become omnipotent. It was his spirit which 
dictated every movement, and particularly the unceasing 
operation of the guillotine. ' Nor did a more bloody and 
merciless tyrant ever wield the rod of power. His acts of 
cruelty and oppression are perhaps wffhout parallel in the 
annals of history. It is general!, V h t for some 

1 1 have used in the preparation the Monroe 

Papers, preserved in the Library . partment in 

Washington, and the “ View,” publh ia, 1797. 




Monroe on the French Revolution. 


125 


months before his fall the list of prisoners was shown him 
every evening, by the President of the Revolutionary Tribu¬ 
nal, and that he marked those who were to be the victims 
of the succeeding day, and which was invariably executed. 
Many whole families, those under the age of sixteen ex¬ 
cepted, were cut off upon the imputation of conspiracies, 
etc., but for the sole reason that some members had been 
more friendly to Brissot, Danton, etc., or had expressed a 
jealousy of his power. This oppression had, in fact, 
gained to such a height that a convulsion became unavoid- 
able.” . . . 

“ It may be asked: Is there any reason to hope that the 
vicious operation of the guillotine will be hereafter sus¬ 
pended? May not factions rise again, contend with and 
destroy each other as heretofore? To this I can only an¬ 
swer that the like is not apprehended here, at least to the 
same extent; that the country from Havre to Paris, and 
Paris itself, appears to enjoy perfect tranquillity; that the 
same order is said to prevail in the armies, who have ad¬ 
dressed the Convention applauding its conduct and rejoic¬ 
ing at the downfall of the late conspirators.” Still, he says, 
until peace is established it is impossible to tell what may 
happen. “ But are not the people oppressed with taxes,” 
he asks, “ worn out by continual drafts to reinforce the 
armies; do they discover no symptoms of increasing dis¬ 
content with the reigning government, and of a desire 
to relapse again under their former tyranny? . . . These 
are great and important questions and to which my short 
residence here will not permit me to give satisfactory an¬ 
swers. ... At present I can only observe that I have 
neither seen nor heard of any symptoms of discontent 
showing itself among the people at large. The oppression 
of Robespierre had indeed created an uneasiness, but which 
disappeared with the cause. I never saw in the counten¬ 
ances of men more apparent content with the lot they enjoy 
than has been shown everywhere since my arrival. In the 
course of the last year the Convention recommended it to 


126 


The French Revolution. 


the people, as the surest means of support for their armies, 
to increase the sphere of cultivation, and, from what I can 
learn, there never was more land under cultivation, nor 
was the country ever blessed with a more productive har¬ 
vest. Many fathers of families, and a great proportion of 
the young men, are sent to the frontiers, and it was feared 
it would be difficult to reap and secure it; but the women, 
the boys and the girls, even to tender age, have supplied 
their places. I saw this with amazement upon my route 
from Havre to this place, and am told ’tis generally the case. 
The victories of their armies are celebrated with joy and 
festivity in every quarter, and scarce a day has latterly 
passed without witnessing a deputation to the Convention, 
and often from the poorest citizens, to throw into its coffers 
some voluntary contribution for the support of the war. 
These are not symptoms of disgust with the reigning gov¬ 
ernment and of a desire to change it! ” 

Monroe thought that wisdom and moderation were win¬ 
ning the day over the violence of the Robespierrean regime 
and that the Revolution was drawing to a happy close. 
Writing a month later loathe Secretary of State (September 
15, 1794), he says: f Nothing of great importance has 
lately taken place in the public councils. The remaining 
spirit of ancient party has, it is true, occasionally shown 
itself, but not with its former vigor; for it seems in a 
great measure to have withdrawn and to lurk in the bosoms 
of the more inveterate only. Happily a different spirit, 
more congenial with the temper of the nation, and which 
inclines to humanity, to peace and concord, seems to per¬ 
vade the mass of the Convention. I think this latter will 
soon prevail so as not only to prevent, at least for the pres¬ 
ent, further enormities, but to heal, in some degree, the 
wounds which have already been inflicted.” As evidence of 
the growth of this spirit of moderation Monroe mentions the 
case of Barrere, Collot d’Herbois and Billaud Varennes, who 
were denounced in the Convention as having been supporters 
and encouragers of Robespierre. The Convention, how- 


Monroe on the French Revolution. 


127 


ever, after having heard the long list of charges, dismissed 
them with disdain, and even censured the accuser, Lecointre 
de Versailles, as a disturber of the public peace. The 
attacking party were now alarmed for their own safety, 
thinking that the rejection of their motion showed the 
invincible strength of the faction they had tried to pro¬ 
scribe. But herein they showed themselves superficial 
observers of the trend of events and opinions. They did 
not perceive that there was a force in the Convention that 
was making for peace, that was determined to curb the 
passions of all violent factions. The accusers did not have 
a majority of the Convention, as has been seen. Neither 
did the accused, as was shown by their defeat shortly after 
in their effort to be re-elected to the Committee of Public 
Safety. “ I have mentioned this incident/’ says Monroe, 
“ because I deem it an important one, in the character of 
the present moment; tending to prove the certainty with 
which the Revolution progresses toward a happy close; 
since the preponderance of those councils which are equally 
distinguished for their wisdom, temperance and humanity, 
continues to increase.’’^ 

A letter dated October 16 is characterized by the same 
serene optimism. “/The councils of the Republic still con¬ 
tinue to present to view an interesting but by no means 
an alarming spectacle. Instances of animated debate, se¬ 
vere crimination, and even of vehement denunciation some¬ 
times take place; but they have hitherto evaporated without 
producing any serious effect. It is obvious that what is 
called the Mountain party is rapidly on the decline, and 
equally so that if the opposite one acts with wisdom and 
moderation at the present crisis it will not only complete 
its overthrow, but destroy the existence (if possible in 
society) of all party whatever.” True, there are violent 
controversies still, but they are in a sense defensive rather 
than offensive, that is, they are the attempts of men to ex¬ 
culpate themselves of past enormities rather than to insti¬ 
gate new .f A molten mass doesn’t cool off without convul- 


128 


The French Revolution. 


sions; but nevertheless it cools. Again, at the opening of 
the next year, he expresses the same opinion."! 

“ The operations of the government continue to progress 
in the same course they have done for some time past.... 
It has been the systematic effort of the administration to 
repair this waste [caused by the reign of terror] and heal 
the bleeding wounds of the country, and in this great 
progress has been made.” 1 Not only have shackles been 
removed from commerce, but the Seventy-One have been 
liberated, Mr. Paine set free, the decree excluding nobles 
and foreigners from Paris and the seaports repealed. 
“ These events have given satisfaction to the community 
at large.” The last act, though apparently of comparatively 
little importance, has, notwithstanding, produced an ex¬ 
cellent effect; “for as it breathes a spirit of humanity and 
on that account captivates all, so it has contributed, by 
passing in review many members of the ancient order of 
nobility (and who have not forgotten and never will forget 
old habits), to present before the public, and much to the 
credit of the Revolution, the strong and interesting contrast 
between the manly character of the French nation at the 
present day and the miserable effeminacy, foppery and de¬ 
crepitude of former times.” 2 

The tone of Monroe’s letters did not change as time 
went by and he became presumably better acquainted with 
the conditions of the country and the character of those in 
power. He believed that the principles of the Revolution 
were rooted deep in the hearts of the people, who, come 
what might, would never be greatly swerved. From all 
that he had seen since his arrival he was convinced that 
as long as the majority of the Convention should remain 
true to the Revolution it would have the support of the 
people, and that even if that majority should turn false 
yet it would not be able to restore the ancient mon¬ 
archy, though of course it could create great confusion and 


1 Letter to Secretary of State, Jan. 13, 1795. 


2 Ibid. 



Monroe on the French Revolution. 129 

do much harm. It was apparently a fundamental belief with 
Monroe that the great mass of the French people were 
true to the Revolution all through the shifting scenes of 
wars and party strife; that they had supported the Conven¬ 
tion, not because they approved everything it did, but 
because they believed it to be faithful to the main object. 
This confidence would continue as long as this lovaltv 
'should lain 

Nor did Monroe think that Frenchmen deserved the 
reputation for turbulence, lawlessness, licentiousness, which 
their actions during the past few years had won for them 
in foreign countries. “ For it is unquestionably true,” says 
he, “ that the great atrocities which have stained the differ¬ 
ent stages of the Revolution, and particularly the massacres 
of the 2d and 3d September, 1792, and the invasion of the 
Convention on the 31st May, 1793, which terminated in the 
arrestation and destruction of the Girondine party, did not 
proceed from a licentious commotion of the people. On 
the contrary, it is believed that many of the immediate 
agents in the first were not inhabitants of Paris, but brought 
from a considerable distance and some even from Italy, 
put in motion by some secret cause not yet fully under¬ 
stood It is also affirmed that the great mass of the people 
of Paris were ignorant of what was perpetrating at the time 
of the transaction, and that those who knew of it were 
struck with the same horror that we were when we heard 
of it on the other side of the Atlantic.” Monroe then ex¬ 
plains the 31st of May as a simple piece of finesse on the 
part of Danton, Robespierre and others, who used a popular 
movement that was perfectly legitimate for purposes quite 
other than those the people had in mind. The element of 
popular turbulence and ferocity disappears largely in the 
explanation. 1 

The outbreak of the 12th Germinal did not disturb our 
ambassador’s optimism. The future, he thought, was for 


1 Letter to the Secretary of State, March 6, 1795. 



130 


The French Revolution. 


the moderate party. Not even the famine, which was 
afflicting France at this time, seemed to him a probable 
source of political danger, however great might be the suf¬ 
fering it would occasion. “ The distress of the people on 
account of the scarcity of bread has been like that of a 
besieged town,” he writes. “ They have been constantly 
upon allowance, and which was lately reduced to two 
ounces, and sometimes less per day. My family, which 
consists of fourteen persons, is allowed two pounds of bread 
per day. I mention this that you may have a just idea of 
the distress of others, and particularly the poor, for at a 
great expense, nearly forty dollars specie per barrel, I am 
supplied. The accounts which we have of the distress of 
the aged, the infirm and even of children are most afflicting; 
yet calmness and serenity are seen everywhere.” 1 
/The futile insurrection of the 20th of May, 1795, went 
to confirm Monroe in his opinions. The party of the Con¬ 
vention that suppressed this insurrection neither desired the 
return of royalty nor of the reign of terror. “ Indeed,” says 
Monroe, “ this party has appeared to me to be, and so I 
have often represented it to you, as equally the enemy of 
the opposite extremes of royalty and anarchy; as resting 
upon the interest and wishes of the great mass of the 
French people, and who I have concluded .... are de¬ 
sirous of a free republican government, one which should^ 
be so organized as to guard against the pernicious conse¬ 
quences that always attend a degeneracy into either of 
these extremes .... Royalty, therefore, I consider at 
present as altogether out of the question. But that these 
convulsive shocks .... may produce some effect is prob¬ 
able. In my opinion they will produce a good one, for I 
am persuaded they will occasion, and upon the report of 
the Committee of Eleven, some very important changes in 
the Constitution of 1793, such as a division of the Legisla¬ 
ture into two branches, with an organization of the execu- 


1 Letter to the Secretary of State, May 17, 1795. 



Monroe on the French Revolution. 


131 


tive and judiciary upon more independent principles than 
that Constitution admits of; upon those principles indeed 
which exist in the American constitutions and are well 
understood there. Should this be the case, the republican 
system will have a fair experiment here; and that it may be 
the case must be the wish of all those who are the friends 
of humanity everywhere/’ 1 

The new Constitution was finally completed and adopted. 
Monroe pronounced it “ infinitely preferable ” to the one it 
was to supersede. It would be, he thought, “ a new bul¬ 
wark in favor of republican government.” Only one cir¬ 
cumstance did he discover in connection with it that seemed 
at all dark—the decree of the Two-Thirds—and upon this he 
put as usual the best interpretation. “ A motive for this was,” 
he says, “ the advantage the republic would gain from keep¬ 
ing in office many of those in whose hands depending 
negotiations were, and who in other respects are acquainted 
with the actual state of things. There may be, and doubt¬ 
less are, other motives for this measure,” but these he never 
mentions. The Constitution was much better than the 
preceding ones; much beyond what the past experience of 
France might lead one to expect, and was an event of 
more than national significance. It was to be tried under 
very embarrassing conditions—foreign war, a party within 
incessantly plotting its overthrow, a great derangement of 
the finances of the country. The experiment could hardly 
be called a fair one. If, however, it should succeed, and if 
the republican system should be preserved despite such 
great difficulties, the refutation would be complete of all 
those arguments that have been thrown at men for ages 
to prove the impracticability of such a government, espec¬ 
ially in old countries. 2 

The insurrection of the 13th Vendemiaire is described in 
one of his official dispatches. “A contest,” says Monroe, 
“ in many respects the most interesting and critical that I 


1 Letter to Secretary of State, June 14, 1795 - 

2 Ibid. Nov. 5, 1795 - 



132 


The French Revolution. 


have yet witnessed, and which promised, had the assailants 
succeeded, not perhaps essentially to impede or vary the 
direct course of the Revolution, but most probably to in¬ 
volve the nation in a civil war, open a new scene of car¬ 
nage more frightful than any yet seen, and deluge the 
country by kindred arms with kindred blood.” The insur¬ 
rection was undoubtedly intended as a first step in the 
subversion of the Revolution and the restoration of the 
monarchy. But even if it had destroyed the Convention, 
royalty could not have been restored for any length of 
time, though the royalists might have come forward, the 
patriots lain quiet and the nation been greatly confounded. 

' Monroe did not believe they could restore the throne! 
** You will observe,” he says, “that my reasoning is founded 
upon a belief that the army is sound, that the great bulk 
of the citizens of Paris are so likewise, and that the farmers 
or cultivators in general, if not decidedly in favor of the 
Revolution, though in my opinion they are, are at least not 
against it, and which belief, though perhaps erroneous, is 
the result of an attentive observation of such facts and cir¬ 
cumstances as have appeared to me to merit attention.” 

“ But you will ask, if Paris is on the side of the Revolu¬ 
tion, how happened it that such a force was formed there 
against the Convention whilst so small a one was mar¬ 
shalled on its side? .... But how happened it that so 
many of the disaffected were chosen into the electoral 
corps as to give the royalists a preponderance there? How 
could a people attached to the Revolution commit the care 
of it to those who were its foes, especially to such as, by 
their station and character, were universally known to be 
such? This touches a subject extremely interesting, for 
it leads to facts over which a veil has yet been thrown, but 
to which history will doubtless do justice, and in which case 
it will present to view a scene of horror in some respects 
perhaps not less frightful than that which was exhibited 
under the reign of terror. Behind the curtain, as it were, 
for it has made but little noise in several of the depart- 



Monroe on the French Revolution. 


133 


ments, the terrible scourge of terror has shifted hands and 
latterly been wielded by the royalists, who, beginning with 
the subaltern, and perhaps wicked agents of the former 
reign, had persecuted and murdered many of the soundest 
patriots and best of men. To such a height had this evil 
risen, and so general was the imputation of terrorism, that 
in certain quarters the patriots in general were not only 
discouraged, but in a great measure depressed. It is 
affirmed to be a fact by those who ought to know and who 
merit belief, that in some of those quarters, and even where 
the preponderance in point of numbers was greatly in their 
favor, none attended the primary assemblies, and that in 
others a few only attended and who took no part in the 
proceedings. This, therefore, will account why the roy¬ 
alists took the lead in those assemblies and why so many 
of them were chosen in the electoral corps. 

“ But by what strange vicissitude of affairs was this 
effect produced? How could it happen under an adminis¬ 
tration unfriendly to royalty?” Here is Monroe’s answer: 
Terrorism, or what was then called so—persecution of the 
royalists had gone so far that it became absolutely neces¬ 
sary to end it. This the Thermidorians attempted after 
the overthrow of Robespierre. “ But so nice was the 
subject upon which they had to act, and so delicate is the 
nerve of human sensibility, that it was impossible for the 
government under existing circumstances to moderate its 
rigor toward the royalists without giving, in a certain de¬ 
gree, encouragement to royalty. In this, therefore, it is 
to be presumed, the late event will produce a beneficial 
effect, for as the views of the royalists were completely 
unmasked and defeated, and which were always denied to 
exist until they were thus unmasked, it cannot otherwise 
than tend to open the eyes of the community in that re¬ 
spect and in the degree to repress the arrogant spirit of 
royalty.” 1 


1 Letter to the Secretary of State, Oct. 20, 1795. 



134 


The French Revolution. 


(Monroe feared that the transition from the Convention 
to the Directorate might be accompanied with more trouble 
and confusion/; /(la the 27th of October, 1795, the Con¬ 
vention closed its career by declaring its powers at an end. 
Immediately thereupon the installation of the new govern¬ 
ment took place by the verification of the powers of the 
deputies and their distribution into two houses. Monroe was 
present and thus describes the event: “ Whe n I observe that 
the scene which was exhibited upon this great occasion 
resembled in many respects what we see daily acted on 
our side of the Atlantic in our national and State assem¬ 
blies, you will have a better idea of the tranquillity which 
reigned throughout than I can otherwise describe. Nor 


shall I be accused of unbecoming partiality if I draw from 
the increasing similitude in their and our political institu¬ 
tions, which this Constitution and other proceedings fur¬ 
nish, the most favorable hopes of the future prosperity and 
welfare of this Republic.’ 


» 1 


The outlook was, on the whole, most auspicious. {The 
Directors were men of talent, integrity and devotion to 
the Revolution, a circumstance that seemed to Monroe 
to show the principles of those who chose them and to tend 
“ essentially to give stability to the Revolution itself,” 
and a few weeks later he was convinced that the new. 
arrangements had been in the line of great improvements. \ 
“ Since the organization of the new government the * 
character and deportment of all the departments are essen¬ 
tially improved. The legislative corps, in both its branches, 
exhibits, in the manner of discussion, a spectacle won¬ 
derfully impressive in its favor when compared with what 
was daily seen in the late Convention. And the executive 
departments begin to show an energy which grows out 
of the nice partition of their duties and the greater respon¬ 
sibility that belongs to each.” 1 2 \ 

The remaining letters of Monroe up to the time of his 


1 Letter to the Secretary of State, Nov. 5, 1795. 

2 Official Dispatch, Dec. 6, 1795. 



Monroe on the French Revolution. 


135 


departure from France in January, 1797, have very little 
interest for us in connection with the present study. They 
are mostly full of the bickerings and complications growing 
out of the Jay Treaty. He notices the bad condition of 
the finances, and mentions one or two attempts of the roy¬ 
alists to stir up trouble for their own peculiar purposes. 
This, however, seems to inspire him with no fear as to the 
stability of the government. There is no passage in Monroe’s 
papers to show that he anticipated the breakdown of the Con- 
stitution, or the advent of a despot. Quite the contrary. 
“ In the interior, too,” he writes, “ everything has assumed 
a new and more invigorating aspect than was shown before 
since the commencement of the Revolution. Great har¬ 
mony prevails between the legislative corps and %he execu¬ 
tive, and a greater spirit of contentment is discerned by 
those who travel through France, among all ranks of 
people, than was seen at any time before since the begin¬ 
ning of that era.\ It is even said that a change is gradually 
making among those who were heretofore deemed the 
implacable foes of republican government, many of whom, 
now that they find they are protected in the rights of person 
and property, begin to lose much of their hatred to that 
form. In truth, prior to the establishment of the present 
Constitution, the people of France had little opportunity 
of judging correctly of the merits of the republican system. 
They judged of it by what they saw in the Revolution, for 
Europe exhibited no other example to their view; and esti¬ 
mating its merits by that standard, they saw in it nothing 
but a series of terrible and convulsive movements, which 
they dreaded even more than the tyranny that was lately 
overthrown. When, therefore, this circumstance is consid¬ 
ered, and the improvement which the new government has 
introduced is properly appreciated, we immediately per¬ 
ceive the cause to which this change of sentiment in that 
class is to be ascribed.” 1 


1 Official Dispatch, July 24, 1796. 



136 


The French Revolution. 


Monroe notes the astonishing victories of “ Buonaparte ” 
in Italy, but with little 
Jourdan and Moreau, 
young man who was 
from the south. He looked at everything with a strong 
republican bias, and his conviction that republicanism had 
come to stay in France seems to have remained unshaken. 

In the address to the Directory, on presenting his letter 
of recall, he said: f In performing this act, many other 
considerations crowd themselves upon my mind. I was a 
witness to a revolution in my own country; I was deeply 
penetrated with its principles, which are the same with 
those of your Revolution; I saw, too, its difficulties, and 
remembering these and the important services rendered 
us by France upon that occasion, I have partaken with you 
in all the perilous and trying situations in which you have 
been placed. 

“ It was my fortune to arrive among you in a moment 
of complicated danger from within and from without; and 
it is with the most heartfelt satisfaction that, in taking my 
leave, I behold victory and the dawn of prosperity upon the 
point of realizing, under the auspices of a wise and excel¬ 
lent Constitution, all the great objects for which, in council 
and the field, you have so long and so nobly contended. 
The information which I shall carry to America of this 
state of your affairs will be received by my countrymen 
with the same joy and solicitude for its continuance that I 
now feel and declare for myself.” 

And the President of the Directory replied most happily 
that “ the French Republic expects that the successors of 
Columbus, Raleigh and Penn, always proud of their liberty, 
will never forget that they owe it to France.” 1 


more emphasis than he bestows upon 
He saw no political despot in the 
sending home statues and paintings 


1 Dec. 30, 1796. 



PART II 


OPINIONS OF AMERICANS AT HOME 

1. First Movements of Public Opinion. 

2. An Extraordinary Year. 

3. Democratic Societies. 

4. Levelling Principles. 

5. American Literature as an Evidence. 

6. Sundry Side-lights. 

7. The Growing Opposition and its Reasons. 

8. Conclusion. 




















OPINIONS OF AMERICANS AT HOME. 


FIRST MOVEMENTS OF PUBLIC OPINION. 

“ All political and civil revolutions,” says De Tocqueville 
in one of the famous chapters of his famous book, “ have 
been confined to a single country. The French Revolution 
had no country; one of its leading effects appeared to be to 
efface national boundaries from the map. It united and 
divided men in spite of law, traditions, characters, language; 
converted enemies into fellow-countrymen, and brothers 
into foes; or, rather, to speak more precisely, it created, far 
above particular nationalities, an intellectual country that 
was common to all, and in which every human creature 
could obtain rights of citizenship. 

“ No similar feature can be discovered in any other polit¬ 
ical revolution recorded in history. But it occurs in certain 
religious revolutions. • Therefore, those who wish to ex¬ 
amine the French Revolution by the light of analogy must 
compare it with religious revolutions.” 1 

That the Revolution was at no time a purely local move¬ 
ment, that it refused to be compressed, but expanded as 
naturally as does a heated gas, is one of the platitudes of 
history. Crossing the Channel, crossing the Rhine, scaling 
the Alps and Pyrenees, the forces to which we give this 
name came down into the different countries of Europe to 
become factors of the first magnitude in their politics, both 
internal and external, for a long while to come. Nor did 
these forces affect merely those countries that lay in the 
immediate neighborhood of the land of their genesis. 
Thrown forth by the impulsion inherent in their very 


1 De Tocqueville. Old Regime, Ch. III. 




140 


The French Revolution. 


nature, they found an ocean no more difficult to cross than 
the river Rhine, and a far-away, undeveloped country as 
ready for their play as the old complicated societies of 
Europe. 

It was just as this stormy, tumultuous period was coming- 
on that our new national government was being instituted. 
The conflict generated was one between the old and the 
new, the established order and an improved order that men 
hoped to establish, respect for the conservative restraints of 
the past and the demand for much wider freedom of the 
individual, and in the wars that soon broke out England 
and the allies stood for the one, France for the other. These 
different conceptions quickly found points of attachment 
in America. “ Freedom and order,” says John Quincy 
Adams, “ were also the elementary principles of the parties 
in the American Union, and as they respectively predom¬ 
inated, each party sympathized with one or the other of the 
combatants. And thus the party movements in our own 
country became complicated with the sweeping hurricane 
of European politics and wars. The division was deeply 
seated in the cabinet of Washington. It separated his two 
principal advisers [Hamilton and Jefferson], and he endeav¬ 
ored without success to hold an even balance between them. 
It pervaded the councils of the Union, the two Houses of 
Congress, the Legislatures of the States, and the people 
throughout the land.” 1 

But this division was not apparent at first; did not, in¬ 
deed, at first exist. 2 The outbreak of the French Revolu¬ 
tion was hailed in America with expressions of ardent 

1 J. Q. Adams. The Lives of James Madison and James Monroe, 
1850, pp. 243-245. 

2 “ In no part of the globe was this revolution contemplated with 
more interest than in America. The influence it would have on 
the affairs of the world was not then distinctly foreseen; and the 
philanthropist, without becoming a political partisan, rejoiced in 
the event. On this subject, therefore, there existed in the public 
mind but one sentiment.” Marshall, Life of Washington, Y, p. 
186. See also J. Q. Adams, Lives of Madison and Monroe. 



Opinions of Americans at Home . 


141 


enthusiasm and lively sympathy, broken only here and there 
in widely isolated cases by some subdued utterance of dis¬ 
trust or doubt. France and America were united by a' 
close friendship, born of a political alliance, and maintained 
“by feelings of gratitude and by the interest awakened in 
both nations by years of intimate association with each 
other. During the latter part of the eighteenth century 
the influence exerted by each of these widely separated and 
widely different nations upon the other had been most 
marked. France had given to America her philosophy 
and her military aid. America had rendered the thought 
of revolution familiar to France, and stood forth herself as 
the successful living embodiment of certain great concep¬ 
tions of liberty, equality and democratic government, to 
the attainment of which for themselves Frenchmen were 
more and more aspiring. They were interested in each 
other and thus a condition favorable to proselytism was at 

hand/} --- 

That Frenchmen were influenced by America has been 
well and abundantly shown by Mr. Rosenthal in his “ Amer¬ 
ica and France.” French memoirs are a witness to this 
with their many references to Franklin, who made America 
quite the fashion in the lively French capital, and to Jeffer¬ 
son, who was speedily recognized by the dilettante philoso¬ 
phers of Paris as a worthy member of the craft. The 
American revolution, in which Frenchmen had borne a part 
quite flattering to the national pride, was a frequent theme, 
and republican government seemed suffused with a peculiar 
light to these glowing readers of Rousseau. / French news¬ 
papers also contained much matter relating to this country 
and bore witness to American influence. In 1789 one of 
them said of Washington that he might be considered, 
“ without exaggeration or flattery, as superior to Curius, 
Fabricius, or any of the heroes de Vage d’or de la republique 
Romaine ,” and this acute judgment was N quoted in America 
with apparent satisfaction and gratitude. j[ 

Similarly, as the Revolution drew on, American news- 




142 


The French Revolution. 


papers began to teem with articles on French subjects; the 
House of Bourbon; the Parliaments; the evil influence of 
women upon French politics; the everlasting mystery of 
the Man of the Iron Mask; the meeting of the Notables in 
1787. America naturally took a keen interest in the Revo¬ 
lution from the very beginning, looking upon it as destined 
to spread abroad her own political and social ideals and 
institutions. “ Liberty,” exclaimed the “ Boston Gazette,” 
when the news began to be wafted over here, “ liberty will 
have another feather in her cap. The seraphic contagion 
was caught from Britain, it crossed the Atlantic to North 
America, from whence the flame has been communicated to 
France.” 1 That a nation should rise from centuries of 
unconditional slavery to a high order of freedom “ on a 
sudden, in the twinkling of an eye,” is, says the same paper, 
“ an event to be contemplated with wonder,” 2 and it predicts 
“ that the ensuing winter will be the commencement of a 
Golden Age.” 3 Noticing the influence of French ideas 
that was showing itself in local commotions in other parts 
of Europe, the “ Pennsylvania Packet ” prints an article 
under the caption of “Hildesheim; Third Spark from the 
Sacred Fire.” 4 5 

Quotations like these, which might be multiplied indefi¬ 
nitely, reveal the attitude of buoyant enthusiasm for the 
French cause that was well nigh universal here during the 
first years of the Revolution, and that with multitudes of 
men could not be shaken by all the excesses and apparent 
failures of the movement. 6 


1 Boston Gazette, Sept. 7, 1789. 2 Ibid. Sept. 28. 

3 Ibid. Nov. 30. 4 Pennsylvania Packet, Nov. 27, 1789. 

5 “ In its first stage but one sentiment respecting it prevailed, and 
that was a belief, accompanied with an ardent wish, that it would 
ameliorate the condition of France, extend the blessings of liberty 
and promote the happiness of the human race.” Marshall, Life 
of Washington, V, 389. 

This feeling showed itself in the verse of the day. 

“ Where’er the sunbeam gilds the rolling hour, 

Wings the fleet gale, and blossoms in the flower, 

May freedom’s glorious reign o’er realms prevail, 

Where Cook’s bright fancy never spread the sail. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


143 


Not only did most Americans contemplate the Revolu¬ 
tion with feelings of pleasure and pride as destined to 
spread abroad their own ideas, but many of them eagerly 
welcomed it as an ally in the propagation of doctrines in 
which they believed but which had not yet won general 
acceptance at home. Already the movement had swung 
into being for the democratization of the country, which was 
to be so powerfully re-inforced by Jefferson and to attain so 
complete a triumph with Jackson. America might well be 
the teacher of her elder sister in some respects, and these 
men thought that she might equally well be her pupil in 
others. That the soil was being rapidly prepared for those 
French levelling principles which were later transplanted, 
was abundantly shown in the uproar occasioned by the 
etiquette and ceremonial that Washington chose to 
throw about the presidency, and by the debates in the first 
Congress on official titles. This democratic ideal, which 
was so long of attainment, this incipient and vigorous dis¬ 
trust of everything not strictly popular in character, is 
shown at its best in the pages of William Maclay, Demo¬ 
cratic Senator from Pennsylvania, whose particular bete 
noir was John Adams, who never hesitated to approve of 
ceremonial and titles. Writing, September 18, 1789, he 
says: “By this and yesterday’s papers, France seems tra¬ 
vailing in the birth of freedom. Her throes and pangs of 


Long may the laurel to the ermine yield. 

The stately palace to the fertile field, 

The fame of Burke in dark oblivion rust, 

His pen a meteor—and his page the dust.” 

“ The Works in Verse and Prose of the Late Robert Treat Paine.” 
Boston, 1812, p. 77. From a poem read at the Harvard Com¬ 
mencement, July 25, 1792. Mr. Paine in after years spoke with 
regret of his “ stripling attempt to smite the pyramidal fame of 
Burke.” 

The correspondence of Washington, Franklin, Jay, Maclay and 
others attests still further this interest in the rising revolution. 
See also R. H. Lee’s Memoirs of the Life of Richard Henry Lee 
and his correspondence, 2 vols., Philadelphia, 1825, II, 97. Letter 
from Lee to Henry. 



144 


The French Revolution. 


labor are violent. God give her a happy delivery! ^ Roy¬ 
alty, nobility and vile pageantry, by which a few of the 
human race lord it over and tread on the necks of their 
fellow-mortals, seem likely to be demolished w T ith their 
kindred Bastille, which is said to be laid in ashes. Ye gods! 
with what indignation do I review the late attempt of some 
creatures among us to revive this vile machinery! O 
Adams! Adams! what a wretch art thou!” 1 

Thus gratitude and the feelings of partisanship were cal¬ 
culated to inspire in Americans admiration of the French 
cause and devotion to it. Still, during the first three years 


1 Journal of William Maclay, 155. 

It was even believed that the United States would draw material 
benefit from the commotions in France. The Wolcotts, for in¬ 
stance, both father and son, thought that French capital, feeling 
insecure at home, would seek extensive investment in our new 
national funds, consequently lowering the rate of interest the Gov¬ 
ernment would have to pay. See Gibbs’ Memoirs, I, 24, 33, 46. 
Madison thought that a new and desirable element would enter 
into our immigration—that many Frenchmen of the more culti¬ 
vated and prosperous classes would be induced to take up per¬ 
manent abode in America, now that cultivation and prosperity 
were such blots on their ’scutcheons at home. See Annals of Con¬ 
gress. Many such indeed did come, though only as refugees for 
the time being—Chateaubriand, Viscount de Noailles, Talleyrand, 
Rochefoucauld-Liancourt, Louis Philippe, Lafayette, Jr., and others. 
See Griswold, Republican Court, pp. 377-390. The presence of these 
strangers was in many ways desirable. They were high-bred gen¬ 
tlemen. “ They brought to us the ideas and manners of a splendid 
though wrecked civilization and strange experiences worthy of 
wise suggestion.” They offered “ to the children of our wealthier 
families, in several instances, princes and nobles for teachers and 
associates.” Griswold. 

That the disturbances in France would play directly into the 
hands of the agents of American land companies seemed probable. 
Oliver Wolcott, writing to his father, observed: “In consequence 
of the Bill of Rights agreed to by the National Assembly, an asso¬ 
ciation has been formed for settling a colony in the western country 
of the United States. About 100 Frenchmen have arrived with the 
national cockade in their hats, fully convinced that it is one of 
their natural rights to go into the woods of America and cut down 
trees for a living. I believe that my friend Barlow has been the 
principal agent in forming this association, and if it shall prove 
successful, it will be a great event and profitable for him.” Gibbs 

I, 46. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


145 


of the Revolution, though there could not have been for a 
moment any doubt as to where lay the sympathy of the 
country, there was no striking public manifestation of i L 
Every event that occurred in France was eagerly followed 
here. The description of scenes such as the opening of 
the States-General, the texts of speeches and laws and con¬ 
stitutions were printed often in full, and to judge from the 
space allotted to them were the most interesting topics of 
the day. Indeed, it was even believed that France, whose 
hand was but newly turned to constitution making, could 
yet reveal important secrets of the art to the far more expe¬ 
rienced Americans. 1 

Events occurred, too, which seemed to keep the connec¬ 
tion of the two countries vividly before the public mind. 
The debates on presidential titles in the first Congress have 
already been mentioned, debates that showed the emer¬ 
gence of that anxious distrust of all social badges which 
later became so aggressive, so formidable, preparing the 
way for the adoption of many revolutionary absurdities 
direct from France. 2 In favor of such titles stood stout 
John Adams. The Senate was willing but the House sus¬ 
picious. Would not their introduction be but the begin¬ 
ning of the march back toward royalty? And did royalty 
come so well accredited out of the past experience of men 
that America could do no better than cheerfully to revive 
it and impose it upon the new, uncorrupted western world? 
Could not gentlemen observe the signs of the times? Were 
the nations of the earth to be seen embracing with increas¬ 
ing fondness the meaningless trumpery of an outworn form 
of government? Were they not rather showing a notable 
tendency to leave royalty somewhat in the lurch? Should 
America shamefully retreat from her rightful position of 
proud primacy in enlightened political institutions at the 


1 The example of the revolutionists was appealed to as a guide 
in the Constitutional Convention of Pennsylvania of 1790. Gray- 
don Memoirs, 329. 

2 Annals of Congress. Newspapers of the day. 



146 


The French Revolution. 


very moment when other nations were visibly preparing to 
range themselves alongside her? Many a democratic heart 
beat swiftly with indignation at the mere possibility. Here 
again we have the testimony of the watchful Maclay, a tes¬ 
timony more than personal—the testimony of a class. “ It 
is worthy of remark,” says this typical man of the people, 
“ that about this time a spirit of reformation broke out in 
France which finally abolished all titles and every trace of 
the feudal system. Strange, indeed, that in that very coun¬ 
try [America] where the flame of freedom had been kindled, 
an attempt should be made to introduce these absurdities 
and humiliating distinctions, which the hand of reason, 
aided by our example, was prostrating in the heart of 
Europe. I, however, will endeavor, as I have hitherto done, 
to use the resentment of the representatives to defeat Mr. 
Adams and others on the subject of titles.” 1 

And again: 

“ Carrol of Carrolton edged near me in the Senate 
chamber and asked me if I had seen the King of France’s 
speech and the acts of the ‘ Tiers Etats ’ by which the dis¬ 
tinctions of the nobility were broken down. I told him I 
had, and I considered it by no means dishonorable to us 
that our efforts against titles were now seconded by the 
representative voice of twenty-four millions. A flash of joy 
lightened from his countenance. How fatal to our fame 
as lovers of liberty would it have been had we adopted the 
shackles of servility which enlightened nations are now 
rejecting with detestation!” 2 

Another of the early measures of the First Congress 
that served to interject foreign attachments into our do¬ 
mestic politics was the question of duties on tonnage 
brought forward in April, 1789. Should there be any dis¬ 
crimination made in the rates in favor of those countries 
having commercial treaties with us? These countries were 
France, Sweden, Holland and Prussia. On the other 


1 Maclay. Journal, 12-13. Memorandum, 1790. 

2 Ibid. 233. On the debates on titles see Hildreth, IV, 59-64. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


147 


hand, with England, which furnished by far the larger part 
of the tonnage employed in the American trade, we had no 
such treaty. Should we not discriminate in favor of 
France, our good ally, and against England, from whom 
we had suffered only ills material and spiritual? Would not 
such a measure be justly punitive? Would it not be provo¬ 
cative of better treatment in the future? Here at the very 
beginning of our national life the two leading countries of 
Europe were placed into that sharp contrast they were to 
maintain for American eyes for long years to come. 
Though hostility or friendship got no very remorseless or 
passionate utterance in this debate, the feeling of attraction 
or repulsion, later to become so marked, was there and was 
called into play. The alignment of American parties along 
the course of European attachments had begun. On the 
one hand there was the belief that discrimination against 
England would be disastrous to ourselves. We ought not 
to deprive ourselves of so great a convenience as British 
ships when we have so few of our own. On the other 
hand the feeling of resentment toward England and grati¬ 
tude and affection for France influenced the judgment of 
many, as it did that of Jefferson, who wrote from Paris 
referring to the cordial relations existing between the 
French and Americans and objected to hazarding their 
continuation by any placing of the former “ on a mere foot¬ 
ing with the English.” “ When of two nations,” he says, 
“ the one has engaged herself in a ruinous war for us, has 
spent her blood and money to save us, has opened her 
bosom to us in peace, and received us almost on the footing 
of her own citizens, while the other has moved heaven, 
earth and hell to exterminate us in war, has insulted us in 
all her councils in peace, shut her doors to us in every port 
where her interests would admit it, libelled us in foreign 
nations, endeavored to poison them against the reception 
of our most precious commodities; to place these two na¬ 
tions on a footing is to give a great deal more to one than 
to the other if the maxim be true that to make unequal 


148 


The French Revolution. 


quantities equal, you must add more to one than the other. 
To say, in excuse, that gratitude is never to enter into the 
motives of national conduct is to revive a principle which 
has been buried for centuries, with its kindred principles 
of the lawfulness of assassination, poison and perjury, etc.” P 

The death of the Dauphin soon after reminded Ameri¬ 
cans anew of the debt they owed the monarch of France 
and called out a natural sympathy for him. The presenta¬ 
tion of the key of the Bastille to Washington by Lafayette 
was an act of some conspicuousness at the time, interesting 
in itself, serving to confirm the popular favor in which the 
Revolution stood here by furnishing for public contem¬ 
plation a striking sign of the triumph of liberty over des¬ 
potism. It called forth a cordial letter of acknowledgment 
from Washington, and cemented in the popular mind the 
alliance between France and America by furnishing a con¬ 
crete and picturesque illustration of the similarity of inter¬ 
ests and aspirations which rendered such an alliance easy, 
natural and popular. 

The announcement of the eulogies pronounced in Paris 
upon the occasion of Franklin’s death aided still further in 
keeping France in the foreground of public thought by 
reminding Americans of that country where one of their 
own number had played so unique and so flattering a role. 
These accounts were published in the newspapers with evi¬ 
dent pride. In Congress they were treated apparently as a 
matter of routine, not calling forth the great enthusiasm that 
the more sensitive “ patriots ” thought becoming. On Dec. 
io, 1790, there was read in the Senate “a letter from Mon¬ 
sieur Beniere, President of the Commonalty of Paris, ad¬ 
dressed to the President and Members of Congress of the 
United States, with twenty-six copies of a Civic Eulogy on 
Benjamin Franklin, pronounced the 21st day of July, 1790, 
in the name of the Commonalty of Paris, by Monsieur 
L’Abbe Fauchet.” After the reading it was ordered that 


1 To Madison, Aug. 28, 1789, III, 99. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


149 


the letters and copies of the eulogy be sent to the House of 
Representatives. 1 2 Again was Maclay the victim of the 
moment. For John Adams had taken the occasion to 
launch forth certain sarcasms at the French and the whole 
matter was “ received and transacted with a coldness and 
apathy ” truly astonishing. The letter and pamphlets in¬ 
deed were “ sent down to the Representatives as if un¬ 
worthy the attention of our body. I deliberated with 
myself whether I would not rise and claim one of the copies 
in right of my being a member. I would, however, only 
have got into a wrangle by so doing without working any 
change in my fellow-members. There might be others 
who indulged the same sentiments, but ’twas silence all.” 1 

A month later Congress received the decree of the Na¬ 
tional Assembly ordering mourning for Franklin for three 
days. And a letter from Sieyes accompanied it, clothed 
in all the warmth of Revolutionary phraseology. “ The 
name of Benjamin Franklin,” so runs the letter, “ will be im¬ 
mortal in the records of freedom and philosophy; but it is 
more particularly dear to a country where, conducted by 
the most sublime mission, this venerable knew very soon 
to acquire an infinite number of friends and admirers, as 
well by the simplicity and sweetness of his manners, as by 
the purity of his principles, the extent of his knowledge, 
and the charms of his mind. . . . 

“ At last the hour of the French has arrived; we love to 
think that the citizens of the United States have not re¬ 
garded with indifference our steps towards liberty. Twenty- 
six millions of men, breaking their chains, and seriously 
occupied in giving themselves a durable constitution, are 
not unworthy the esteem of a generous people who have 
preceded them in that noble career. 

“ We hope they will learn with interest the funeral hom¬ 
age which we have rendered to the Nestor of America. 
May this solemn act of fraternal friendship serve more and 


1 Annals of Congress, Senate, Dec. io, 1790. 

2 Maclay, Journal, 350. 



150 


The French Revolution. 


more to bind the tie which ought to unite two free nations. 
May the common enjoyment of liberty shed itself over the 
whole globe and become an indissoluble chain of con¬ 
nection among all the peoples of the earth. For ought 
they not to perceive that they will march more steadfastly 
and more certainly to their true happiness in understanding 
and loving each other than in being jealous and fighting? 

“ May the Congress of the United States and the Na¬ 
tional Assembly of France be the first to furnish this fine 
spectacle to the world! And may the individuals of the 
two nations connect themselves by a mutual affection 
worthy of the friendship which unites the two men, at this 
day most illustrious for their exertions for liberty—Wash¬ 
ington and Lafayette! ” 1 

Again did the Senate refuse to throw itself into a frenzy. 

“ A letter from the National Assembly of France on the 

/ —■ mm mii i ~~ J 

- 

death of Dr. Franklin was communicated from them and 
received with a coldness that was truly amazing. I cannot 
help painting to myself the disappointment that awaits the 
French patriots while their warm fancies are figuring the 
raptures that we will be thrown into on receipt of their 
letter and the information of the honors which they have 
bestowed on our countryman, and anticipating the com¬ 
plimentary echoes of our answers when we, cold as clay, 
care not a fig for them, Franklin, or freedom. Well, we 
deserve—what do we deserve? To be d- d!” 2 

Louis the Sixteenth’s adoption of the constitution of ’91, 
a letter from that monarch to Washington announcing the 
fact, a message from the latter to Congress calling forth 
replies from both Houses, could not help from keeping un¬ 
relaxed, if not from positively intensifying, the relations of 
the two powers. The Senate, indeed, in its reply, did little 
more than gratefully acknowledge the receipt of informa¬ 
tion so highly satisfactory, without passing judgment either 
expressly or by implication upon the document itself. The 


1 Annals of Congress, Jan., 1791. 

2 Maclay Journal, 379-380, Jan. 26, 1791. 







Opinions of Americans at Home. 151 

House, however, praised the “ wisdom and magnanimity 
displayed in its formation and acceptance. 1 J 

It was in the course of the Mint and Coinage Debate of 
1792 that the first references were made in Congress bear¬ 
ing directly upon French public affairs, and they show an 
inclination to that same pettiness and triviality so charac¬ 
teristic of much of the activity of French assemblies of the 
period. The bill provided that on one side of certain coins 
there should be a representation of the head of the Presi¬ 
dent for the time being with his name and order in suc¬ 
cession imprinted. To this there was objection on the 
part of some whose sagacity detected here another of the 
parts of the general scheme to lead the country back to 
monarchy. Consequently in alarm it was moved to amend 
by substituting for the President’s head a figure “ Em¬ 
blematic of Liberty with an inscription of the word Lib¬ 
erty.” “ It would be viewed by the world as a stamp of 
royalty,” said Mr. Page, of Virginia, in seconding the mo¬ 
tion, and “ would wound the feelings of many friends and 
gratify our enemies.” Mr. Williamson, of North Carolina, 
likewise approved the change. “ He thought the amend¬ 
ment consistent with Republican principles and therefore 
approved it.” “ Mr. Livermore of New Hampshire ridi¬ 
culed with an uncommon degree of humor the idea that it 
could be of any consequence to the United States whether 
the head of Liberty were on their coins or not; the Presi¬ 
dent was a very good emblem of Liberty, but what an 
emblematical figure might be he could not tell. A ghost 
had been said to be in the shape of the sound of a drum, 
and so might Liberty for aught he knew.” Just how the 
impression of the President’s head on our coins could 
imperil the liberty of the people he found great difficulty in 
imagining. Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, agreed with Mr. 
Livermore. The President represents the people of the 
United States. He may, therefore, with great propriety 


1 Annals of Congress, March, 1792. 



152 


The French Revolution. 


represent them on their coins. Mr. Smith said he was 
surprised that a member who so much admired the French 
and their new constitution should be so averse to a practice 
they have established; the head of their King is, by their 
constitution, put upon the money. The amendment, how¬ 
ever, was carried. 1 J f j j 

There were a few men in this country, but only a few, 
who from the very beginning of the French Revolution 
looked at it askance. They were never caught by the san¬ 
guine enthusiasm that was all about them; their natural 
conservatism of temper led them to detect at once certain 
elements of weakness in the situation there that might pos¬ 
sibly lead to disaster. Washington had early expressed a 
vague fear that the solution of the problem confronting 
Frenchmen would not be found as easy as they themselves 
were prone to think, though on the whole he seems to have 
regarded the rising Revolution as full of promise. Ham¬ 
ilton early caught what he thought was the false note in it 
all—the tendency to let the speculative faculty ride supreme. 
Gouverneur Morris, seeing the drama unroll before him, 
was decidedly skeptical. But they were almost the only 
ones who ventured the gentlest criticism in those opening 
years, with the exception of one whose incredulity and hos¬ 
tility were almost instinctive, and from the beginning un¬ 
mistakably clear and strong, John Adams. Before Burke 
had ever sounded the alarm which brought the conserva¬ 
tism of the world rushing to defend itself, Adams had 
expressed a view of the probable outcome of the Revolu¬ 
tion hardly less forceful. Writing to the same Dr. Price, 
who so aroused the wrath of Burke, and acknowledg¬ 
ing the receipt of a copy of the sermon which was the 
immediate occasion of the latter’s terrific onslaught, Adams 
said (April 19, 1790): “Accept my best thanks for your 
favor of February 1st and the excellent discourse that came 
with it. I love the zeal and spirit which dictated this dis- 


1 Annals of Congress, March. 1792. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


153 


course and admire the general sentiments of it. From the 
year 1760 to this hour, the whole scope of my life has been 
to support such principles and propagate such sentiments. 
No sacrifices of myself or my family, no dangers, no labors 
have been too much for me in this great cause. The 
Revolution in France could not, therefore, be indifferent to 
me, but I have learned by awful experience to rejoice with 
trembling. I know that encyclopedists and economists, 
Diderot and D’Alembert, Voltaire and Rousseau, have con- 

j,., v . 

tributed to this great event more than Sidney, Locke or 
Hoadley,. perhaps more than the American Revolution, 
and I own to you I know not what to make of a republic 
of thirty million atheists. . . . Too many Frenchmen, like 
too many Americans, pant for equality of persons and 
property. The impracticability of this God Almighty has 
decreed, and the advocates for liberty who attempt it will 
surely suffer for it.” 1 2 

Such were the views of Adams, early conceived and reso¬ 
lutely held, of the sources and leaders of the Revolution. 
Adams, as his biographer says, “ never relished the vague 
and fanciful speculations of the Fi^ench school”; his mind 
had rather been “ formed in the mould of the English 
writers,” some of whom he names in the letter just quoted. 5 

There now began that breach in the friendship of Jef¬ 
ferson and Adams which, though deep, was only temporary, 
and which grew directly out of the French Revolution. 
Adams published in the course of 1790 a series of political 
papers called “ Discourses on Davila ” in the Gazette of the 
United States at Philadelphia. They grew out of the Revo¬ 
lution, whose principles, now gradually unfolding, were 
deeply abhorrent to Adams. Their immediate provocation 
was the publication by Condorcet of a pamphlet entitled 
“ Quatre Lettres d’un Bourgeois de New-Haven, sur l’Unite 
de la Legislation.” Taking as his text “ Davila’s History 
of the Civil Wars in France in the 16th Century,” Adams 


1 Life and Works of John Adams, IX, 563-564. 

2 Ibid. I, 454. Memoir by C. F. Adams. 





154 


The French Revolution . 


proceeded to give his views again on government. His 
object was to show that powerful factions are the death of 
the State unless hemmed in by artifices of government to 
restricted spheres of activity. Though writing of the civil 
convulsions of France in the sixteenth century, of the 
ceaseless and disastrous quarrels of the Guises, the Mont- 
morenci, the Condes, the Bourbons, he really has his eye 
constantly upon the passing phenomena of the Revolution, 
in which he sees a recurrence of causes and results similar 
to those observed by the Italian historian before him. Con¬ 
temptuously rejecting Turgot’s famous theorem, revived 
in Condorcet’s pamphlet, of “ all authority in one center and 
that center the nation,” as a mystery more inscrutable than 
that of the Athanasian creed, he contends that as parties or 
factions animated by the fiercest rivalry are apparently 
inevitable in every state, government should be so organ¬ 
ized as to preserve an equilibrium between these different 
forces, allowing neither to become predominant, for, if 
either should succeed, despotism would, follow. Every pas¬ 
sion should have its counterpoise: /Provision should be 
made in the constitution for balancing party against party. 
This can be done by a system of checks and balances, such 
as that so skilfully devised by the framers of our own Con¬ 
stitution. It certainly is not desirable that the King should 
be all-powerful, a vast, undefined, resistless force in the 
State, in short, a despot. Nor is the despotism of an oli¬ 
garchy any more attractive. The people should have a 
share in the government. But if they are “ advised to aim 
at collecting the whole sovereignty in single national 
assemblies, as they are by the Duke de la Rochefoucauld 
and the Marquis of Condorcet; or at the abolition of the 
regal executive authority; or at the division of the execu¬ 
tive power, as they are by a posthumous publication of the 
Abbe de Mably, they will fail of their desired liberty as 
surely as emulation and rivalry are founded in human 
nature and inseparable from civil affairs. It is not to flatter 
the passions of the people, to be sure, nor is it the way to 


Opinions of Americans at Ho?ne. 


155 


obtain a present enthusiastic popularity to tell them that in 
a single Assembly they will act as arbitrarily and tyrannically 
as any despot, but it is a sacred truth, and as demonstrable 
as any proposition whatever, that a sovereignty in a single 
Assembly must necessarily, and will certainly be exercised 
by a majority as tyrannically as any sovereignty was ever 
exercised by kings or nobles. And if a balance of passions 
and interests is not scientifically concerted the present 
struggle in Europe will be little beneficial to mankind and 
produce nothing but another thousand years of feudal 
fanaticism under new and strange names.” 

“ A Legislature in one Assembly,” he says elsewhere in 
the Discourses, “ can have no other termination than in ) 
civil dissension, feudal anarchy, or simple monarchy.” In 
this, one of the fundamental tenets of the early revolu¬ 
tionists, Adams had not the slightest faith. Neither had 
he any in other parts of the government as shaped by the 
National Assembly. Asked by Talleyrand what he thought 
of the executive power in the new Constitution, he replied: 
“The King is Daniel in the lions’ den; if he ever gets out 
alive it must be by miracle.” Asked by the same person 
the same question in regard to a subsequent Constitution, 
his answer was suggested by another Biblical episode: 

“ It is Shadrach, Meshech and Abednego in the fiery fur¬ 
nace. If they escape alive, it must be because fire will not 
burn.” 

Again Adams shows the same disdain for those who 
would abolish all distinctions. They, forsooth, would do 
not only the undesirable, but the impossible as well. “ Al- 
phonsus V,” he says, “ the astronomical King of Castile, 
has been accused of impiety for saying that, ‘ If at the time 
of the creation he had been called to the councils of the 
Divinity, he could have given some useful advice concern¬ 
ing the motions of the stars.’ It is not probable that any¬ 
thing was intended by him more than a humorous sarcasm 
or a sneer of contempt at the Ptolemaic system, a projec¬ 
tion of which he had before him. But if the National As- 


156 


The French Revolution. 


sembly should have seriously in contemplation, and should 
resolve in earnest the total abolition of all distinctions and 
orders, it would be much more difficult to vindicate them 
from an accusation of impiety. God, in the constitution of 
nature, has ordained that every man shall have a disposi¬ 
tion to emulation as well as imitation, and, consequently, 
a passion for distinction; and that all men shall not have 
equal means and opportunities of gratifying it. Shall we 
believe the National Assembly capable of resolving that 
no man shall have any desire of distinction, or that all men 
shall have equal means of gratifying it? Or that no man 
shall have any means of gratifying it? What, would this 
be better than saying if we had been called to the councils 
of the celestials we could have given better advice in the 
constitution of human nature?” To the hopes and prom¬ 
ises and systems that the philosophers are so enthusiasti¬ 
cally pressing upon France, he says: “All this is enchant¬ 
ing. But amidst our enthusiasm there is great reason 
to pause and preserve our sobriety. . . . Amidst all their v 
exultations, Americans and Frenchmen should remember 
that the perfectibility of man is only human and terrestrial 
perfectibility. Cold will still freeze, and fire will never 
cease to burn; disease and vice will continue to disorder, 
and, death to terrify mankind.” 

“ Property,” says he, “ must be secured or liberty cannot 
exist. But if unlimited or unbalanced power of disposing 
property be put into the hands of those who have no prop¬ 
erty, France will find.... the lamb committed to the cus¬ 
tody of the wolf.] In such a case all the pathetic exhorta¬ 
tions and addresses of the National Assembly to the people 
to respect property will be regarded nq- more than the 
warbles of the songsters of the forest. /The great art of 
law-giving consists in balancing the poor against the rich 
in the Legislature, and in constituting the Legislature a per¬ 
fect balance against the executive power, at the same time 
that no individual or party can become its rival.” / 

Thus the Discourses ran on, appearing from time to 


Opinions of Americans at Home. 


157 


time in the columns of Fennos’ paper, and giving great 
umbrage to the democrats throughout the country. These 
were surely not the views of a reformer hailing the revo¬ 
lution beyond the seas as the coming of a new dispensation 
among men. Adams himself later expressed his astonish¬ 
ment at having been able to write so dull and heavy a book 
especially when so little was to be gained thereby and so 
much to be lost. 1 To Jefferson the doctrines now preached 
by his renegade friend seemed big with hateful possibilities. 
There was a suspicion of monarchy lurking behind these 
vigorous phrases. Should Davila talk and all the world 
be silent? Should monarchy come by default? Some¬ 
thing must be done, or rather said. Jefferson didn’t wish 
to say it himself, but he saw in Paine’s “ Rights of Man ” 
the convenient and sufficient antidote, and consequently 
favored its republication in America. 

The reprinting of Paine’s pamphlet had an influence 
ropon the estrangement of Adams and Jefferson and served 
to intensify the differing political principles for which they 
'Stood. One of the famous incidents of the day was the< 
discovery of the part played by Jefferson in that republi¬ 
cation. He himself explains it in a letter to Washington, 
May 8, 1791 (Philadelphia), the President being then absent 
on a tour through the Southern States. “ The last week 
does not furnish one single public event worthy of com- 


1 “ This dull, heavy volume still excites the wonder of its author; 
first, that he could find amidst the constant scenes of business and 
dissipation in which he was enveloped, time to write it; secondly, 
that he had the courage to oppose and publish his own opinions 
to the universal opinion of America, and, indeed, of all mankind. 
Not one man in America then believed him. He knew not and has 
not heard of one since who then believed him. The work, how¬ 
ever, operated powerfully to destroy his popularity. It was urged 
as full proof that he was an advocate for monarchy and laboring to 
introduce a hereditary president in America.” Works, VI, 227. 

The discourses are to be found in the sixth volume of Adams’ 
Works, pp. 223-403, enriched by a series of sharp, pugnacious and 
triumphant foot-notes made as late as 1812-13 by Adams in his pri¬ 
vate copy, showing from the history of France between 1790 and 
1813 how good a prophet he was. 




158 


The French Revolution. 


municating to you; so that I have only to say ‘ all is well/ 
Paine’s answer to Burke’s pamphlet begins to produce 
some squibs in our public papers. In Fennos’ paper they 
are Burkites, in others they are Painites. One of Fennos’ 
was evidently from the author of the Discourses on Davila. 
I am afraid the indiscretion of a printer has committed me 
with my friend Mr. Adams, for whom, as one of the most 
honest and disinterested men alive, I have a cordial esteem, 
increased by long habits of concurrence in opinion in the 
days of his republicanism and even since his apostasy to 
hereditary monarchy and nobility; though we differ, we 
differ as friends should do. Beckley had the only copy of 
Paine’s pamphlet and lent it to me, desiring, when I should 
have read it, that I should send it to a Mr. I. B. Smith, who 
had asked it for his brother to reprint it. Being an utter 
stranger to I. B. Smith, both by sight and character, I wrote 
a note to explain to him why I (a stranger to him) sent him 
a pamphlet, namely, that Mr. Beckley had desired it, and, to 
take off a little of the dryness of the note, I added that I was 
glad to find that it was to be reprinted; that something 
would at length be publicly said against the political her¬ 
esies which had lately sprung up among us, and that I did 
not doubt our citizens would rally around the standard of 
Common Sense. 

“ That I had in my view the Discourses on Davila, which 
had filled Fennos’ paper for a twelve-month without con¬ 
tradiction, is certain; but nothing was ever further from 
my thoughts than to become myself the contradictor before 
the public. To my great astonishment, however, when the 
pamphlet came out the printer had prefixed my note to 
it without having given me the most distant hint of it. Mr. 
Adams will unquestionably take to himself the charge of 
political heresy, as conscious of his own views of drawing 
the present government to the form of the English Consti¬ 
tution, and I fear will consider me as meaning to injure 
him in the public eye. I learn that some Anglomen have 
censured it in another point of view, as a sanction of Paine’s 


Opinions of Americans at Home. 


159 


principles tends to give offence to the British Government. 
Their real fear, however, is that this popular and repub¬ 
lican pamphlet, taking wonderfully, is likely at a single 
stroke to wipe out all the unconstitutional doctrines which 


their bell-wether Davila has been preaching for a twelve- 
month. 

“ I certainly never made a secret of my being anti- 
monarchical and anti-aristocratical; but I am sincerely mor¬ 
tified to be thus brought forward on the public stage, 
where, to remain, to advance or to retire, will be equally 
against my love of silence and quiet and my abhorrence of 
dispute .” 1 2 

Jefferson thoroughly approved of Paine's pamphlet; 
Adams as thoroughly detested it, as is shown in the fol¬ 
lowing quotations: 

“ Paine’s pamphlet,” Jefferson writes to Short, “ has been 
.published and read with general applause here. . . . The 
Tory paper, Fennos’, rarely admits anything which defends 
the present form of government in opposition to his desire 
of subverting it to make way for a King, Lords and Com¬ 
mons. There are high names here in favor of the doctrine, 
but these publications have drawn forth pretty generally 
expressions of the public sentiment on this subject, and I 
>, thank God, they are to a man firm as a rock in their repub¬ 
licanism.” 

A note appended to the above after the word “ names ” 
was as follows: 

“ Adams, Jay, Hamilton, Knox, and many of the Cin¬ 
cinnati. The second says nothing; the third is open. Both 
are dangerous. They pant after a union with England, as 
the power which is to support their projects, and are most 
determined anti-Gallicans. It is prognosticated that our 
republic is to end with the President’s life, but I believe 
they will find themselves all head and no body.’ 


V 2 


1 Jefferson’s Works, III, 257. 

2 Quoted by Randall, II, 12, from Tucker’s Jefferson. 



160 


The French Revolution. 


He wrote to Paine himself: 

“ I am glad you did not come away till you had written 
your ‘ Rights of Man.’ That has been much read here 
with avidity and pleasure. A writer under the signature 
Publicola has attacked it. A host of champions entered 
the arena immediately in your defence. The discussion 
excited the public attention, recalled it to the ‘ Defence of 
the American Constitution ’ and the ‘ Discourses on Da¬ 
vila,’ which it had kindly passed over without censure in the 
moment, and very general expressions of their sense have 
been now drawn forth; and I thank God that they appear 
firm in their republicanism, notwithstanding the contrary 
hopes and assertions of a sect here, high in name, but 
small in numbers. These had flattered themselves that 
the silence of the people under the ‘ Defence ’ and ‘ Da¬ 
vila ’ was a symptom of their conversion to the doctrine of 
King, Lords and Commons. They are checked at least 
by your pamphlet, and the people confirmed in their good 
old faith.” 1 

That Adams disapproved the pamphlet may be shown 
with equal explicitness. Lear says in a letter to Washing¬ 
ton (Philadelphia, May 8, 1791): “I had myself an oppor¬ 
tunity of hearing Mr. Adams’ sentiments on it one day 
soon after the first copies of it arrived in this place. I was 
at the Vice-President’s house, and while there Dr. and Mrs. 
Rush came in. The conversation turned upon the book, 
and Dr. Rush asked the Vice-President what he thought 
of it. After a little hesitation, he laid his hand upon his 
breast and said in a very solemn manner, ‘ I detest that 
book and its tendency from the bottom of my heart.’ ” 2 

Maclay, in his journal, gives another reference to Adams’ 
attitude toward the pamphlets of the period. “ This is a 
day of no business,” he says, “ in the Senate. Before the 
House formed, Mr. Adams, our Vice-President, came to 
where I was sitting and told how many late pamphlets he 


'July 29. 1791. 

2 Washington’s Writings, Sparks’ ed., X, 162 note. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


161 


had received from England; how the subject of the French 
Revolution agitated the English politics; that for his part 
he despised them all but the production of Mr. Burke, and 
this same Mr. Burke despised the French Revolution. 
Bravo, Mr. Adams! I did not need this trait of your char¬ 
acter to know you.” 1 

The republication of Paine’s pamphlet brought another 
contestant upon the field “ to complicate the action.” John 
Quincy Adams, a young lawyer of twenty-four, waiting for 
clients, employed his leisure in writing a series of articles 
exposing the weaknesses and fallacies of Paine’s argument. 
They were first published in the Columbian Centinel over 
the signature of “ Publicola.” Attracting attention both 
at home and abroad, they were reprinted in New York, 
Philadelphia and London. The high quality of these 
youthful essays is shown by the fact that they were very 
generally attributed to John Adams. “They were not his, 
however,” says Charles Francis Adams, “ excepting so far 
as the son might have imbibed with his growth the prin¬ 
ciples which animated the father through life.” They were 
written “ without any communication with his father.” 2 
In these papers Adams, after stating the leading doc- 

_ *X* 

trines in Paine’s work, seeks to show how false and unten¬ 
able they are. He denies that “ whatever a whole nation 
chooses to do it has a right to do,” maintaining that on 
the contrary “ nations, no less than individuals, are subject 
to the eternal and immutable laws of justice and morality.” 
Paine’s doctrine, he declares, threatens every man in his 
inalienable rights, and “would lead in practice to a hideous 
despotism, concealed under the parti-colored garments of 
democracy.” 8 Out of this controversy over the very fun- 

1 Maclay, Journal, p. 249. Maclay speaks of Adams’ “ nobili- 
mania,” of which he is never cured, into which he constantly re¬ 
lapses, p. 349- 

* Adams. Life of John Adams, I, 454-455. 

3 Josiah Quincy. Memoir of the Life of John Quincy Adams, 

p. 9. 

These articles called forth praise from those high in station. 



162 


The French Revolution . 


damental principles of government, of which the Discourses 
on Davila, Paine’s Rights of Man, essays of Publicola and 
others were episodes, came a very marked widening in the 
party lines of the United States. * 1 

Thus the cleft was beginning to appear which was later 
to become so wide and deep, rending the previous unan¬ 
imity of enthusiasm and approval. That unanimity was in¬ 
deed first threatened when the main lines of the new French 
Constitution became known. Some who had thought deeply 
upon the science of government felt that the doom of 
that Constitution was sealed in its very provisions. John 
Adams, as we have seen, was foremost among these. “ The 
Constitution is but an experiment,” he said, “ and must 
and will be altered. I know it to be impossible that France 
should be long governed by it. If the sovereignty is to 


“ The Viscount de Noailles called on me,” writes John Adams 
to his wife. “ He seems to despair of liberty in France and 
has lost apparently all hopes of ever living in France. He was 
very critical in his enquiries concerning the letters which were 
printed as mine in England. I told him candidly that I did not 
write them, and as frankly in confidence, who did. He says they 
made a great impression upon the people of England. That he 
heard Mr. Windham and Mr. Fox speak of them as the best thing 
that had been written, and as one of the best pieces, both of rea¬ 
soning and style, they had ever read.” Letters of John Adams to 
his Wife. Edited by Charles Francis Adams, II, 130. 

1 “ Those principles” [of the Adamses], says Charles Francis 
Adams, “ were widely remote from the doctrines of Paine. They 
seemed to Mr. Jefferson like adding fuel to the funeral pile of 
liberty; and the whole force of his friends was soon concentrated 
to resist their progress. The Adamses, on the other hand, deny¬ 
ing the justice of this imputation, regarded Mr. Jefferson’s support 
of Paine as bordering too closely upon social disintegration and 
favoring a mere popular tyranny. Thus came about the joining 
of that issue upon fundamental principles in America which must 
ever take place under all forms of free government, so long as 
human society shall remain what it is. The conservative and the 
democratic republic may be considered as the general types which 
have from that day to this marshalled the respective divisions of 
the people of the United States in opposition to each other when 
not affected by disturbing influences from without.” Life of John 
Adams, I. 455. On the question whether Jefferson was guilty of 
duplicity in this episode see Ibid. I, 618-619, and Randall, Life of 
Jefferson. Ill, 7-10, note. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


163 


reside in one Assembly, the King, princes of the blood 
and principal quality will govern it at their pleasure as long 
as they can agree; when they differ they will go to war and 
act over again all the tragedies of Valois, Bourbons, Lor¬ 
raines, Guises and Colignis two hundred years ago.” 1 
Jay was similarly distrustful. 2 Gouverneur Morris had no 
idea it would last. Joel Barlow, now an extreme Revolu¬ 
tionist, didn’t think it could or should endure—it was only 
a half-way measure, useful as such. About this time he 
wrote his “ Advice to the Privileged Orders ” and “ Conspi¬ 
racy of Kings,” which were influences of some importance 
in bringing about the second revolution. But the great 
mass of the American people no doubt thought very favor¬ 
ably of the new Constitution. They did not question it 
minutely. They were not critics handling the scalpel 
of keen analysis. The plain, blunt facts of the case they 
perceived, and they did not stop to think of the remote con¬ 
tingencies. France, hitherto an absolute monarchy, had be¬ 
come a constitutional government, as any one could see. 
This was auspicious, and sufficient matter for gratulation. 
Aaron Burr, writing to Mrs. Burr, said: “ From an atten¬ 
tive perusal of the French Constitution, and a careful ex¬ 
amination of the proceedings, I am a warm admirer of the 
essential parts of the plan of government which they have 
instituted and of the talents and disinterestedness of the 
members of the National Assembly.” 3 Apparently this 
was the general attitude of public opinion at this time. 
Thus, though Hamilton might doubt, and Jay distrust, 
and Adams scathingly denounce, though the Senate might 
on occasion show a slight indifference to affairs beyond the 
sea, though a cleft might threaten to sunder sentiment in 
twain, yet it was a scarcely perceptible seam after all, and 
even that appeared about to be closed in the fervid heat of 
the closing months of 1792 and the opening ones of 1793. 


1 Adams, Works, IX, 563-4, April 19, 1790. 

2 Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, IV, 200-202. 

8 Davis, Memoirs of Aaron Burr, I, 312, Dec. 15, 1791. 



164 


The French Revolution . 


AN EXTRAORDINARY YEAR 

Though Americans had been interested in the Revolu¬ 
tion from the very outset for a variety of reasons, it was 
only toward the close of the year 1792 that this interest 
was publicly manifested. But when the monarchy was 
completely overthrown and the Republic proclaimed, all 
America was thrilled. From this time on the movements 
of the French armies were followed with great excitement, 
and when, toward the close of this year, the Republic had 
so far asserted itself as to have driven back the invaders, ; 
the Revolution seemed so far accomplished as to demand 
a public manifestation of joy on the part of the Americans. 
Then began a year utterly without parallel, so far as I am 
aware, in the history of this country. American citizens 
gave themselves up to the most extraordinary series of cele¬ 
brations in honor of the achievements of another country 
which in no way directly concerned them and did not need 
directly to affect them. The news of the retreat of the 
allies reached this country about the middle of December. 
At once the celebrations began. One was held in Balti¬ 
more, the first of which I find any record, on the 20th of 
December, when “ a numerous and respectable company of 
gentlemen, Friends of the Rights of Man,” as the report 
runs, met at “ Mr. Grant’s fountain inn for the purpose of 
celebrating the late triumph of liberty over despotism in 
France,” and who, “ after partaking of an excellent dinner,” 
drank fifteen republican toasts. 1 In its next issue the 
National Gazette said that it was desirable “ that the other 
capitals on this continent should imitate Baltimore in her 
convivial meetings to celebrate the glorious successes of 
France over the despotic combination.” 2 The imitation 
began forthwith; had, indeed, already begun, for in New 
York, December 27th, bells had been rung, a liberty pole 
erected, surmounted by a crimson Phrygian cap, and the 


1 National Gazette, Dec. 26, 1792. 


2 Ibid. Dec. 29, 1792. 




Opinions of Americans at Home. 


165 


Tammany Society had held a most enthusiastic banquet in 
the wigwam. At this celebration several patriotic songs 
were sung. Here is one “hastily composed”: 

“ By hell inspir’d with brutal rage, 

Austria and Prussia both engage, 

To crush fair freedom’s flame; 

But the intrepid sons of France 
Have led them such a glorious dance 
They’ve turned their backs for shame. 

May Heaven continue still to bless 
The arms of freedom with success, 

Till tyrants are no more; 

And still as Gallia’s sons shall fly 
From victory to victory, 

We’ll, shouting, cry Encore!” 1 

In Boston there were already signs prophetic of the 
coming of the French frenzy. The mind of the editor of 
the Independent Chronicle was beginning to glow. He 
speaks of “ the uncommon joy and satisfaction with which 
a free people have received the highly animating informa¬ 
tion ” of the French victories. In continuing the narration 
of that “ brilliant chain of successes,” he finds his pleasure 
“ ineffable.” 2 3 The editor of the Centinel waited “ on the 
rack of impatience for further accounts ” of the victories of 
the French, 8 and when the further accounts were forth¬ 
coming announcing the retreat of the Prussians, he noted 
that “joy was visible on the countenance of every citizen, 
which expressed itself in cordial congratulations on the 
event.” 4 A week later there appeared the following curious 
notice: 

“J8 @“As the French citizens have rendered essential 
services to the establishment of Liberty and Independence 
in America in the former conflict with Great Britain, Quere 
—Whether a return of the compliment might not be en¬ 
joyed by a convivial dinner at which every French or 

1 Columbian Centinel, Jan. 9, 1793. 

2 Independent Chronicle, Jan. 17, 1793. 

3 Columbian Centinel, Dec. 19, 1792. 4 Ibid. Dec. 29, 1792. 




166 


The French Revolution. 


American freeman might have an opportunity of wishing 
his friend joy upon the success of the arms of Liberty and 
Equality. 

“ Those gentlemen who are desirous of attending upon 
the occasion are requested to leave their names at Col. 
Coleman’s, on or before the next Tuesday, that matters may 
be properly regulated.” 1 

A few days later the following card appeared in the 
Boston Gazette (Jan. 21, 1793): 

“ Civic Feast. 

A number of Citizens, anxious to celebrate the success 
of our Allies, the French, in their present glorious strug¬ 
gles for Liberty and Equality, and that every member of the 
community should partake in the general joy, have agreed 
to provide an Ox, with suitable Liquors, on Thursday, the 
24th inst., being the day appointed for the Civic Feast: A 
subscription for this purpose is still open at Colonel Cole¬ 
man’s, State Street. Tickets for the Civic Feast may be 
procured at Citizen Brooks.” 2 

This was the beginning of the Civic Feast held in Boston, 
January 24, 1793, an event long famous in the annals of 
that town. It may serve well enough as the type of an 
almost interminable series of such festivals, and was marked 
by no greater extravagance, though perhaps by more elab¬ 
orateness, than others. The enthusiastic descriptions of 
this famous French frolic in the Boston papers of the day 
produce a strange and unreal impression upon one whose 
first impulse is to think of the New England temperament 
as self-contained, sober and sedate as becometh the de¬ 
scendants of those sturdy, though rather forbidding, men 
who first sought the bleak and gloomy shores of Massa¬ 
chusetts in the dead of winter. 

The plans for the celebration grew as men thought about 
it. Soon the Inspector of Police felt called upon to issue a 


1 Columbian Centinel, Jan. 5, 1793. 

2 Boston Gazette, Jan. 21, 1793. 




Opinions of Americans at Home. 


167 


public card—he entered fully into the spirit of the day 
appointed for the Civic Feast—far was he from wishing to 
diminish the happiness of the people—on the contrary his 
happiness and theirs were quite synonymous—but fire¬ 
works are dangerous and he would therefore issue certain 
orders regarding their use. 1 In its next issue the Centinel 
published the following strain, under the caption “ The 
Festive Season”: 

“ A Nation’s born—Let Freemen, loud, 

Thus echo to the skies. 

Success to Gallia’s New-Born Sons! 

Columbia’s free Allies.” 

Further it announced that “ as a prologue to the festive 
scenes of the week a number of citizens dined together at 
the Coffee House on Monday last,” where the first toast 
given was “ Universal Liberty and Equality,” and the last, 
“ May Tyranny, Despotism and Usurpation with their con¬ 
comitants, be forever blotted from the Records of Man and 
securely deposited in the Archives of that Region, pre¬ 
pared by the Deity for the reception of Every Evil Work.” 2 
Then came the great 24th. 

This Civic Festival was ushered in by a salute of cannon 
from the castle in the harbor. 3 At eleven o’clock the fea¬ 
ture of the day, the great procession, started, led by two 
citizens mounted on horseback and waving civic flags; 
then Citizen Waters, the Marshal; then the band; then citi¬ 
zens, eight and eight; then twelve citizens in white frocks 
with cleavers, knives, steels and other implements; then a 
roasted ox ornamented with ribbons and with gilded horns. 
From the right horn was displayed the Republican flag of 


1 Columbian Centinel, Jan. 19, 1793. 2 Ibid. Jan. 23, 1793. 

3 On the Boston Civic Feast see Columbian Centinel, Indepen¬ 
dent Chronicle, Boston Gazette, issues for the last week in January, 
1793. Also Thomas’ Reminiscences of the Last Sixty-five Years, 
I, 19-20; Wm. Sullivan, Familiar Letters, 76 - 77 ; Wm. H. Sumner’s 
History of East Boston, 262-264 (account quoted nearly verbatim 
from the Williams Journal of Daily Occurrences on Noddles Is¬ 
land); also Memorial History of Boston, III, 203-4; IV, 10-n. 



168 


The French Revolution . 


France and from the left that of the United States, and in 
front a board on the end of a spit bore the inscription in 
large gold letters, “ Peace Offering to Liberty and 
Equality.” After the ox came citizens eight deep. Then 
a cart bearing eight hundred loaves of bread and drawn by 
six horses, “ suitably decorated,” followed by a huge hogs¬ 
head of punch and another cart heaped high with bread and 
another hogshead heaped high with punch. The proces¬ 
sion moved through the town, saluting the houses of the 
Governor, the Lieutenant-Governor, the Consul of France, 
drawing up finally in State Street, having named Liberty 
Square by the way, where a liberty pole sixty feet high had 
just been erected. The ox, which had been roasted on 
Copp’s Hill, and the bread and punch were served on 
tables in State Street, the line extending from the Old State 
House to near Kilby Street. A correspondent of a local 
paper was so moved by the power of this curious scene in 
State Street in cold midwinter that he wished for the pen 
of Burke that he might worthily describe it. This is very 
interesting, considering what Burke would probably have 
said. “ While the streets, houses, yea, even the chimney- 
tops,” he says, “ were covered with male spectators, the 
balconies and middle stories of the houses exhibited bevies 
of our amiable and beautiful women, who, by their smiles 
and approbation, cast a pleasing lustre over the festive 
scenes.” And to impress on the tender minds of the rising 
generation the precepts of that glorious period, every child 
was presented with a civic cake bearing the words Liberty 
and Equality. “ To the feeling heart the sight of these 
little ones, thus feasted, was extremely gratifying,” says the 
editor of the Columbian Centinel. 

At two o'clock another procession moved from the State 
House to Faneuil Hall, where a great banquet was held, 
Citizen Samuel Adams presiding. The Hall was elabo¬ 
rately decorated. At the west end, over the head of the 
president, rose an obelisk, having in front the figure of 
Liberty, her left hand supporting her insignia and her 


Opinions of Americans at Home. 


169 


right displaying “ The Rights of Man.” Under her feet 
lay broken in a hundred pieces the badges of Civil and 
Ecclesiastical Despotism—a crown, sceptre, mitre and 
chains. Over her head a descending cherub presented in 
its right hand a wreath as the Reward of Virtue, and in its 
left the Palm of Peace. Over the whole there was an 
Eye supposed to be the benign Eye of Providence, which 
appeared to view with approbation the scene below. The 
French and American flags were everywhere, and many 
were the mottoes and inscriptions to Liberty and Equality, 
to Justice and to Peace. So fervid was the feeling aroused 
by the incidents of the day that “ amidst other displays pf 
urbanity ” a purse was raised for the release of the pris¬ 
oners in the town jail; “ the doors of the prison house were 
thrown open, and those who had long been immured 
therein were invited to join their festive brethren and again 
breathe the air of Liberty.” 

In the evening the State House was illuminated, while 
throughout the town there were fireworks and bonfires, 
and it was considered matter for gratulation that though 
“ the utmost hilarity and frolick ” were exhibited through¬ 
out the day, not a single accident happened that could 
“ give pain to the heart of sensibility.” 1 

These celebrations were not local; they occurred in the 
South, in the North, in the Middle States; Philadelphia saw 
scores of them. Nor were they limited to the cities, the 
capitals of this continent, as Freneau was pleased to call 
them. The cities did but give the word and set the tone 


1 “ The descendants of the Puritans seem to have borrowed the 
temperament of the French as well as their symbols,” says a recent 
writer. “ Cloudless was the outlook for humanity as the flowing 
bumpers were drained on that auspicious day. A bad omen was not 
to be tolerated; the resources of exegesis must make it a good one. 
When a balloon refused to bear heavenward a scroll proclaiming 
Liberty and Equality, it was happily suggested that, as the denizens 
of the air needed not these precious watchwords, they had graciously 
remained to bless the inhabitants of the earth.” Memorial History 
of Boston, IV, 13. Article by J. P. Quincy on Social Life in 
Boston. 



170 


The French Revolution. 


for similar demonstrations in the towns of which they were 
the natural foci. Some of these were semi-religious in 
character, as, for instance, one held in Plymouth, Massa¬ 
chusetts, on the 24th of January, a contemporary descrip¬ 
tion of which is a vivid revelation of the state of the popular 
mind. “ The serene and beautiful morning of the 24th,” 
so runs the description, “ was ushered in by a discharge of 
fifteen cannon. At ten o’clock the inhabitants repaired to 
the Meeting-House to hear an address which the Rev. 
Dr. Robbins was requested to deliver upon the occasion. A 
well adapted Prayer and Hymn of Praise preceded the 
Address, which, though composed in haste, was sensible, 
animated and eloquent. A brief but connected sketch of 
the principles and leading events of the French Revolution 
led the people to understand wherefore they had come 
together, while every one was delighted with the happy elo¬ 
quence of the speaker, and cordially united with him in 
adopting the sublime and striking language of the Prophet 
Daniel, ‘ Blessed be the name of God forever and ever: for 
wisdom and might are his and he changeth the times and 
seasons. He removeth Kings.’ After the address, Billings’ 
Independence was sung by a select choir, who performed 
their parts with energies suited to the subject. ‘ Down 
with these earthly Kings,’ thundered the majestic bass. 
‘ No King but God,’ was the sublime response.” After the 
church service there was a parade through the town, during 
which, “ at proper intervals, an Ode to Liberty, which Citi¬ 
zen J. Croswell composed in a moment of happy inspira¬ 
tion, was repeatedly sung. . . . The company retired sea¬ 
sonably in the afternoon, satisfied with themselves, with 
each other and with their country. A cheerful ball closed 
the enjoyment of this agreeable day.” 1 

Similar celebrations are mentioned in Medford, Dor¬ 
chester, Portsmouth, Providence, Roxbury, Cambridge, 
Princeton. 2 In Watertown a Civic Feast was held at which 


1 Columbian Centinel, Jan. 30, 1793. 

2 Ibid. Feb. 2, 6, 9, 1793; Independent Chronicle, Feb. 14, 1793. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


171 


one hundred villagers, “ after having laid a basis of solids 
amid the effusions of cheerful Bacchus,” proceeded to give 
fifteen exciting toasts. 1 

In Charleston a “ grand civic pageant ” took place Jan¬ 
uary ii, 1793, in honor of the French, and so great was the 
public enthusiasm that on the eve of that day the bells of 
St. Michael’s were rung and a salute of guns was fired by 
the artillery. The same honors were repeated the next 
morning, and in the course of the day a procession paraded 
the streets, headed by the Governor of the State, the Chief 
Justice, the French consul in “ full costume,” the orator of 
the day, the Rev. Mr. Coste, Judges, Chancellors, Speaker 
of the House and other public officers. In passing before 
the French Protestant Church, the Consul, as an expiation 
for the persecution of Louis XIV against the Church, 
halted the procession, took off his hat and saluted it with 
the national colors. Arrived safely within St. Philip’s 
Church, “ the place appointed for the religious exercises of 
the day,” the Rev. Mr. Coste delivered an “ animated ora¬ 
tion,” the Te Deum was sung, and the service was closed 
by the singing of the “ Hymne de Marsellais,” to an organ 
accompaniment. In the afternoon there was a grand fete 
at Williams’ Coffee House, two hundred and fifty persons 
taking part. “ This day of real fraternizing ended har¬ 
moniously.” 2 

In Savannah a celebration was held January 24th, at 
which “ an oration that would have done honor to the 
greatest orators of ancient Greece and Rome was delivered 
upon this glorious occasion to a crowded audience by 
Joseph Clay, junr., Esq.” 3 In Norfolk, Va., the people, 
exulting over the French victories over Brunswick, and 
“ being deeply impressed with an anxious solicitude for the 
general happiness of mankind, have agreed to have a Ball 
on Friday the 8th, as a testimonial of our gratitude to a 

1 Columbian Centinel, Jan. 30, 1793. 

3 Fraser, Reminiscences of Charleston, 40-41. 

* Dunlap’s Daily Advertiser, Feb. 27, 1793. 



172 


The French Revolution. 


nation that greatly contributed to the independence and 
happiness of America and are now contending for the 
establishment of their own.” Among the subscribers were 
Arthur Lee and Richard Henry Lee. Similar festivities 
were held in Fredericksburg, Petersburg and other places. 1 

In Philadelphia joy was unconfined. “We have just 
received the glorious news of the Prussian army being 
obliged to retreat, and hope it will be followed by some 
proper catastrophe on them,” writes Jefferson from that city, 
December 15. “ The news has given wry faces to our 
monocrats here, but sincere joy to the great body of our 
citizens. It arrived only in the afternoon of yesterday, and 
the bells were rung and some illuminations took place in 
the evening.” 2 Public attention had already been turned 
in Philadelphia to the French Revolution the preceding 
summer. King Louis was popular, both because he had 
once aided us and seemed now disposed to gratify the 
wishes of his own people. He was publicly toasted at the 
4th of July celebration, 1792. The 14th of July was cele¬ 
brated too. The shipping along the river front was gaily 
decorated with flags. There was a dinner at Oeller’s, at 
which toasts complimentary to the French King and people 
were drunk. 3 The first celebration after the announcement 
of the French victories and in their honor was held at 
Oeller’s, January 1, 1793. Hodgkinson, the comedian, sang 
a patriotic song. Those present organized the Societe Fran¬ 
chise des Amis de l’Egalite. Other celebrations in honor 
of the Republic were held on the 6th of February—date of 
the Franco-American alliance—one at the City Tavern, at 
which Governor Mifflin, the French Minister, De Ternant, 
and the French Consul General, De la Forest, and the 
officers of the city militia, were present. “ At the head of 
the table stood a pike bearing the cap of liberty and the 
French and American flags entwined, surmounted by a dove 


1 Dunlap’s Daily Advertiser, Jan. 31, 1793; Feb. 7, 1793. 

2 Jefferson’s Works, III, 494. 

5 Scharf & Westcott, History of Philadelphia, I, 469. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


173 


bearing the olive branch. After the drinking of toasts, 
singing of songs, etc., the officers, with the band, proceeded 
to the house of the French Minister, where the band played 
‘ Ca ira’ and ‘Yankee Doodle.’” 1 

Nor were these celebrations merely temporary. They 
were but the dashings of the first wave of the French Rev¬ 
olution upon our shores. Another and a greater swept 
over the land with the coming of the new French Minister, 
Genet. It is no part of the present thesis to trace the 
official career, the amazing performances of this amazing 
young diplomat. Genet, who precipitated one of the most 
famous incidents in our diplomatic history, was a member 
of one of the notable families of France. His father had 
been connected with the ministry of foreign affairs for 
forty-five years. One of his sisters was Madame Campan, 
so intimate with the royal family; another was the beautiful 
Madame Angine, mother-in-law of Marshal Ney. As a boy 
he was intellectually precocious. At the age of twelve he 
translated the History of Eric XIV into the Swedish lan¬ 
guage, appending historical remarks of his own. For this 
he received high praise and a gold medal. He was an ex¬ 
cellent linguist, a member of many of the most distin¬ 
guished learned societies in Europe. He was still under 
thirty years of age; was a man of fine presence and polished 
manners, entertaining in conversation. From his early 
youth he had served the State, first as secretary to the 
eldest brother of Louis XVI, then as attache to the em¬ 
bassies of Berlin, Vienna, London and St. Petersburg. He 
was in Russia at the outbreak of the Revolution. When 
Louis XVI was dethroned the Empress ordered him to 
leave her dominions. Genet indignantly protested, thereby 
greatly endearing himself to the triumphant faction at home, 
who at once appointed him minister to the young republic 
beyond the seas. 2 

Genet came here an ardent, impulsive, eloquent young 


1 Scharf & Westcott, I, 472-3; Gazette of the United States, Feb. 

g lygs. 2 Biographie Universelle. 



174 


The French Revolution. 


Frenchman, aflame with the ideals of the Girondists, whose 
messenger he was, ideals that scorned all the world’s tra¬ 
dition and wont, recking little of national boundaries and 
habits, a universal gospel, announcing the salvation of the 
world of politics. His career here was short, sharp and 
decisive. He went off with a great report. Disorder, 
most admired disorder, was the result of his ministrations 
to the American people. Great was the ferment and the 
uproar that arose all about him. France had just declared 
war against England, and Genet came to embroil us in the 
trouble. From the beginning he acted rather as one of the 
rulers of the country than simply as a delegate to it, a 
blunder that brought one fatality after another in its train. 
With a total misconception of his own position, and an 
equal misconception of the character of those to whom he 
was accredited, all the elements of trouble were at hand. 
With his pert and bouncing attitude toward our govern¬ 
ment, his blustering arrogance, turning quickly into hys¬ 
teria when met with the slightest rebuff, this man of sound 
and fury, for such he soon proved himself to be, quickly 
effected international difficulties for the young nation he 
came to visit that taxed all the abilities of a very able ad¬ 
ministration. He concerns us here, not primarily in this 
capacity of diplomat, but as one who, sweeping through 
the country from Charleston northward, imparted to mul¬ 
titudes of men his own heated enthusiasm for the French 
cause, or, by force of repulsion, abhorrence of everything 
for which he stood. Greeted everywhere with very great 
favor, his picturesque course kindled joy in the hearts of 
the republicans and wrath in those of the federalists. 1 

Genet did not land in Philadelphia, but at Charleston, a 


1 At first he apparently impressed every one quite favorably. 
James Iredell wrote to Mrs. Iredell from Baltimore (May 16, 1793): 
“ I waited on the new French Minister here in company with many 
other gentlemen, and was very much pleased with him, as were, I 
believe, all the rest. He is a very handsome man, with a fine open 
countenance and pleasing, unaffected manners.” McRee’s Life and 
Correspondence of James Iredell, II, 386. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


175 


point most distant from the seat of government. Charles¬ 
ton was just in the mood to give him a most cordial wel¬ 
come. A movement was already on foot there for the 
solemn abolition of the use “of all aristocratical terms of 
distinction and respect,” a movement that, according to the 
National Gazette, had the support of “ a very large number 
of reputable names.” 1 “In a State where sansculottism 
had already made much progress, the animating presence of 
the Parisian Missionary was all that could be wanted,” 
exclaimed derisive William Cobbett, who had already 
begun to make merry with the rising sect of “ Jacobins.” 2 
Genet, greatly stimulated, no doubt, by the cordiality of the 
greeting in which many of those in high official station had 
joined, proceeded to play the sovereign. He caused priva¬ 
teers, manned mostly by Americans, to be fitted out; issued 
letters of marque and reprisal to American citizens, and 
took the extraordinary step of authorizing the French con¬ 
suls throughout the country to act as judges of admiralty in 
the trial and condemnation of all prizes that might be 
brought into American ports. After having remained 
about ten days in Charleston, this “ Sansculotte Corps 
Diplomatique” 3 marched off to Philadelphia. There it had 
been resolved a fortnight before his arrival to give him a 
splendid reception. The republicans seized the occasion to 
strike with terror the “ cowardly conservatives, anglomen 
and monarchists.” 4 Genet is coming. He should be prop¬ 
erly received, writes a correspondent to the National Ga¬ 
zette, “ And may we not hope that the true republicans of 
this country will hoist the three-colored flag, the emblem of 
patriotism; and to complete the spectacle, that our fair 
Pennsylvanians will decorate their elegant persons and 
adorn their hair with patriotic ribbands on the occasion.” 5 


1 National Gazette, March 23, 1793. 

2 Cobbett, Hist, of Am. Jacobins in Wm. Playfair’s Hist, of 
Jacobinism, p. 10. 

On public opinion in Charleston see also Fraser, Reminiscences, 

39. 3 Cobbett. 4 Griswold, Republican Court, 348. 

5 National Gazette, April 10, 1793. 



176 


The French Revolution. 


As a preparation for this great event, Philadelphians 
were regaled with the sight of a French man-of-war, U Am¬ 
buscade, which came sailing up the river the second day of 
May, saluting and being saluted by multitudes of people 
and by the gaily decorated vessels along the wharves. This 
ship seemed herself the very personification of the new mili¬ 
tant republic, so bedight was she with republican emblems. 
The figures on bow and stern wore caps of liberty; the fore¬ 
topgallant mast was also crowned with one. Her quarter 
galleries were decorated with gilded anchors bearing the 
bonnet rouge. From the top of her foremast floated a warn¬ 
ing banner, “Enemies of equality, reform or tremble”; 
from the mainmast, “ Freemen, behold, we are your friends 
and brethren,” and from the mizzenmast, “ We are armed 
to defend the rights of man.” 1 

Genet left Charleston, April 19. At once the societies of 
Philadelphia began preparing drafts of addresses to him 
and laying schemes for “ elegant ” dinners in his honor. 
On May 15 the National Gazette announced that several 
hours before his arrival three cannon would be fired from 
the frigate IT Ambuscade, so that the citizens might have 
ample time to go out and meet him at Gray’s Ferry. On 
the 16th Genet arrived, overflowing with gratitude for the 
manifestations of interest and enthusiasm with which he 
had been overwhelmed ever since leaving Charleston. “ On 
his way hither both farmers and merchants readily offered 
him their flour and other articles of provision at a lower 
price than they would dispose of them to the agents of any 
other nation. This article of flour alone amounts to more 
than 600,000 barrels.” 2 

Crowds flocked out from every avenue to meet him. 
A town meeting was called to congratulate him on his 
arrival. At this meeting a committee of seven citizens was 
appointed to draw up an address of welcome. The com¬ 
mittee consisted of men prominent in Philadelphia life— 

1 National Gazette, May 4, 1793; Griswold, Republican Court, 348. 

a National Gazette, May 18, 1793. 




Opinions of Americans at Home. 


177 


David Rittenhouse, J. D. Sergeant, Dr. Hutchinson, A. J. 
Dallas, Peter S. Duponceau and Charles Biddle. 1 This was 
reported at a general meeting of citizens next evening and 
accepted, and a committee of thirty appointed to present 
the same to Genet. The committee accordingly repaired 
to the City Tavern, two by two, followed by an immense 
concourse of citizens walking in procession. 2 

The character of this address, which indeed is only typical 
of others, is shown by the following extract: 

“ For such reasons, sir, we have been naturally led to 
contemplate the struggles of France with a fraternal eye, 
sympathizing in all her calamities, and exulting in all her 
successes; but there is another interest, the interest of free¬ 
dom and equality, which adds to the force of our affections 
and renders the cause of France important to every re¬ 
public and dear to all the human race. 

“ Be assured, therefore, that justly regarding the culti¬ 
vation of republican principles as the best security for the 
permanancy of our own popular governments, we rest our 
favorite hopes at this momentous crisis on the conduct of 
the French; and earnestly giving to the national exertions 
our wishes and our prayers, we cannot resist the pleasing 
hope that, although America is not a party in the existing 
war, she may still be able in a state of peace to demonstrate 
the sincerity of her friendship by affording every useful 
assistance to the citizens of her sister republic.” 

Genet, very much touched, delivered an extempore reply. 
“ He observed that he was not an orator, and should not 
at any time affect the language of eloquence; that even, 
however, in uttering the genuine and spontaneous senti¬ 
ments of his heart on an occasion so interesting and so flat¬ 
tering, he experienced some embarrassment arising from 
his defective acquaintance with the language in which he 
was about to speak, but this defect he was certain freemen 

Charles Biddle, Autobiography, 251; Pennypacker, Historical 
and Biographical Sketches, 86. 2 National Gazette, May 18, 1793. 



178 


The French Revolution. 


would excuse. . . . He then adverted to the address and 
acknowledged in the most pathetic expressions the sense 
which he and his fellow-citizens must entertain in finding 
so noble an avowal of the principles of the Revolution in 
France.” . . . “ France,” continued M. Genet, “ is sur¬ 
rounded with difficulties, but her cause is meritorious; it is 
the cause of mankind and must prevail. With respect to you, 
I will declare openly and freely, for the minister of a repub¬ 
lic should have no secrets, no intrigue, that from the remote 
situation of America and other circumstances, she does not 
expect that America should become a party in the war, but 
remembering that she has already combated for your lib¬ 
erties and, if it was necessary and she had the power, would 
cheerfully again enlist in your cause, we hope, and every¬ 
thing I hear and see assures me our hope will be realized, 
that her citizens will be treated as brothers in danger and 
distress. Under this impression, my feelings at this mo¬ 
ment are inexpressible, and when I transmit your address 
to my fellow-citizens in France they will consider this day 
as one of the happiest of their infant Republic.” “ It is 
impossible to describe with adequate energy,” says the 
National Gazette, “ the scene that succeeded.” Tremend¬ 
ous were the shouts and salutations. Genet was compelled 
to address the citizens in the streets, which he did “ in a few 
but emphatic sentences.” 1 

On the same day a committee appointed by the German 
Republican Society of Philadelphia waited on the new 
Minister with another address, to which he replied, express¬ 
ing the conviction that Germany would “yet be free.” 
Numerous other addresses were presented calling forth 
similar responses. 

The republicans were in high glee over the warmth of 
the popular feeling thus shown for France. All this and 
much more that was to come occurred after the proclama¬ 
tion of neutrality had gone forth from the President’s hand 


1 National Gazette, May 22, 1793. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


179 


(April 22) and was scarcely consonant with an impartial 
attitude toward the contending parties. But the republi¬ 
cans did not like this proclamation and were glad enough 
of the chance to express their opinion of it in a pointed 
manner; glad enough to minimize its effects if possible. 

Madison, writing from Orange early in May, had ex¬ 
pressed the most anxious desire that the reception of Genet 
might testify what he believed to be the real affections of 
the people. “ It is the more desirable, as a seasonable 
plum after the bitter pills which it seems must be admin¬ 
istered.” 1 He hoped Genet would not be misled into sup¬ 
posing this country indifferent, as he surely would if he 
took either “ the fashionable cant of the cities ” or the 
“ cold caution of the Government ” for the real sense of the 
public. 2 A few days later (June 19) he wrote in this strain: 
“ I regret extremely the position into which the President 
has been thrown. The unpopular cause of Anglomany is 
openly laying claim to him. . . . The proclamation was, in 
truth, a most unfortunate error. It wounds the national 
honor by seeming to disregard the stipulated duties to 
France. It wounds the popular feelings by a seeming in¬ 
difference to the cause of liberty. And it seems to violate 
the forms and spirit of the Constitution by making the 
Executive Magistrate the organ of the disposition, the duty, 
and the interest of the nation, in relation to war and peace 
—subjects appropriated to other departments of the Gov¬ 
ernment. It is mortifying to the real friends of the Presi¬ 
dent that his fame and his influence should have been 
unnecessarily made to depend in any degree on political 
events in a foreign quarter of the Globe; and particularly 
so that he should have anything to apprehend from the 
success of liberty in another country, since he owes his pre¬ 
eminence to the success of it in his own. If France tri¬ 
umphs, the ill-fated proclamation will be a mill-stone, which 
would sink any other character, and will force a struggle 
even on his.” 


1 Letters of James Madison, I, 578 . 


2 Ibid. I, 579 - 580 . 






180 


The French Revolution. 


Jefferson’s attitude was similar. He began to talk about 
the “ manly neutrality,” which was the one we ought to 
have adopted, instead of this pusillanimous one that threat¬ 
ened to be “ a mere English neutrality.” Our proceedings 
“ towards the conspirators against human liberty, and the 
asserters of it,” were “ unjustifiable in principle, in interest, 
and in respect to the wishes of our constituents.” The re- . 
suit was that the people, not seeing the Government 
express their mind, “ were coming forward to express it 
themselves.” 1 

This was precisely what they were doing. The President 
might proclaim neutrality and firmly force it upon the dif¬ 
ferent departments of the Government. The conservative 
merchants of Philadelphia—three hundred of the prin¬ 
cipal ones—might rally about him approving the procla¬ 
mation and promising to observe it strictly themselves and 
to “ discountenance in the most pointed manner any con¬ 
trary disposition in others.” But in vain. With leaders 
feeling as did Jefferson and Madison, as Genet drew on 
from Charleston, there was apparently no power to check 
the popular enthusiasm. We have seen how it first ex¬ 
pressed itself—through numerous addresses. Then the 
opposition press began to teem with articles of the most 
glowing description. “ The genuine display of affection 
for the cause of France has once more abashed aristocracy 
and hailed equality triumphant,” writes “ An Old Soldier ” 
to one of the Philadelphia papers. “ The bosoms of many 
hundred freemen beat high with affectionate transport, their 
souls caught the celestial fire of struggling liberty, and in 
the enthusiasm of emotion they communicated their feel¬ 
ings to the worthy and amiable representative of the French 
nation. . . . Proclamations, unsanctioned by preceding 
laws, and processions of merchants, are equally indifferent 
to freemen when opposed to the national dictates of the 
head and the warm impulses of the heart. Thanks to our 


1 Jefferson’s Works, III, 557, 562. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


181 


God, sovereignty still resides with the people, and that 
neither proclamations nor royal demeanor and state can pre¬ 
vent them from exercising it. Of this the independent free¬ 
men of this metropolis gave a striking example in the re¬ 
ception of M. Genet.” It is an insult to put France on a 
plane with other countries. “ Still it must not be imagined 
that my voice is for war. If we really could help France 
war would be our duty, our security, but our assistance may 
best be rendered in peace.” 1 

“ Mirabeau ” wrote in great gratitude to Genet: “ Amer¬ 
ica is indebted to France for her present portion of liberty; 
nay, more, she must look up to her for its preservation; 
for so incorporate is their fate that they must rise or set 
together. If the oak is prostrated by the blast, the ivy 
which has entwined itself around it must participate in the 
ruin. Should France be subjugated by the confederated 
tyrants, woe unto America, for if a direct attack should not 
be made by them upon her liberties, the seductive power 
of corruption may make them pass away like a meteor.” 

Two days after his arrival the banquets began. The first 
one was at Oeller’s. There were a hundred covers. The 
Minister and his family were there, Ternant, La Forest, 
the captain and officers of L* Ambuscade, and some of the 
State officials. Fifteen toasts were drunk. An “ elegant ” 
ode was read. The “ Marseillaise hymn ” was sung “ with 
great taste and spirit ” by Citizen Bournonville, the whole 
company joining in the chorus. Citizen Genet, at the 
request of the society, gave a song “ replete with truly 
patriotic and republican sentiments,” delivered “ with great 
energy and judgment.” The table was decorated with the 
tree and cap of liberty and the French and American flags. 
After the last toast had been drunk the cap of liberty was 
placed on the head of Citizen Genet and then travelled from 
head to head around the table, “ each wearer enlivening the 
scene with a patriotic sentiment.” These tokens of liberty 


1 National Gazette, May 22, 1793. 



182 


The French Revolution. 


and American and French fraternity were delivered to the 
officers and mariners of L’Ambuscade, “ who promised to 
defend them till death.” 1 

The whole atmosphere of these celebrations was heated, 
overcharged, smacking of the cafes of Paris. Citizen 
Bompard, commander of L’Ambuscade, gave a dinner on 
board his vessel at which Governor Mifflin and Generals 
Knox and Stewart were present. They drank the usual 
toasts, and as they were about to leave, the boatswain, Du¬ 
pont, addressed them in the name of his messmates in a 
speech “replete with feeling.” “You see before you your 
good friends the French. Several of us have shed their 
blood to establish your liberty and independence; we are 
willing if necessary to shed the last drop of what remains 
for the maintaining that freedom which like you we have 
acquired. We are still your good friends and brethren, 
and if you should again want our assistance, we shall al¬ 
ways be ready to give you proofs of our attachment.” The 
Governor answered this “ artless and energetic ” speech by 
expressing his most sincere wishes for the happiness of the 
French nation and the success of the privateer L’Am¬ 
buscade. 2 

The 4th of July was celebrated in much the same way, 
more as a French than an American holiday. The 14th 
of July was duly observed. The officers of the second 
regiment of Philadelphia militia assembled at Weed’s Ferry 
to commemorate the overthrow of the Bastille. Governor 
Mifflin and Genet were invited. The cannon discharged 
85 rounds in honor of the 85 departments of France. 
Among the toasts were these: The Fourteenth of July; may 
it be a Sabbath in the calendar of freedom, and a Jubilee to 
the European world! The Tenth of August; may the free¬ 
men who offered up their lives on the altar of Liberty be 
ever remembered as martyrs and canonized as saints! May 
the Bastilles of despotism, throughout the earth, be crum- 


1 National Gazette, May 25 , 1793 . 


2 Ibid. June 1 , 1793 . 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


183 


bled into dust and the Phoenix of Freedom grow out of 
the ashes! May the sister republics of France and America 
be as incorporate as light and heat; and the man who 
endeavors to disunite them be viewed as the Arnold of 
his country! May honor and probity be the principles by 
which the connections of free nations shall be determined; 
and no Machiavellian commentaries explain the text of 
treaties! The Treaty of Alliance with France; may those 
who attempt to evade or violate the political obligations 
and faith of our country be considered as traitors and con¬ 
signed to infamy! May the succeeding generation wonder 
that such beings as Kings were ever permitted to exist! 1 
It was probably at this dinner that the head of a pig was 
severed from its body, and being recognized as an emblem 
of the murdered King of France, was carried round to the 
guests. “ Each one placing the cap of liberty upon his 
head, pronounced the word ‘tyrant’! and proceeded to 
mangle with his knife the head of the luckless creature 
doomed to be served for so unworthy a company.” 2 3 

A month later enthusiasm broke out in New York as 
one day a French fleet was seen entering the waters of the 
Hudson. Everywhere was the tricolor, men even wearing 
it on their watch-chains. To add to the excitement Genet 
arrived from Philadelphia. The march northward still 
remained triumphal. Here as everywhere he was met by 
delegations—a committee had gone out to meet him at 
Paulus Hook—here as everywhere he was presented with 
congratulatory addresses—here as everywhere there were 
firing of cannon, ringing of bells, and eating of elaborate 
dinners. All this was the more convincing evidence of the 
popularity of his cause since he had already been made 
to feel the displeasure and opposition of the Government. 8 


1 National Gazette, July 17, 1793. 

2 Thompson Westcott, in Westcott & Scharf, I, 474. See also 
Griswold, Rep. Court, p. 350; Cobbett, Hist, of Am. Jac., p. 26; 
Lamb, History of New York, II, 392. 

3 Lamb, Hist, of City of New York, II, 393. 



184 


The French Revolution. 


“ Thus rolled Genet’s time away, in a variety of such non¬ 
sensical, stupid, unmeaning, childish entertainments as 
were never thought or heard of till Frenchmen took it into 
their heads to gabble about liberty,” growled fiery William 
Cobbett. 1 

These demonstrations and the attention he received from 
important individuals, as Gov. Moultrie in South Carolina, 
Gov. Mifflin in Pennsylvania, Gov. Clinton in New York, 
turned Genet’s head, raised his effrontery to the breaking 
point. On the occasion of his official presentation to 
Washington he took offence at a bust of Louis XVI. It 
was an insult to his government, by whom the execution 
of the King had been ordered, this recognition of “'Capet 
and his family.” 2 Invited to dine on the 4th of July with 
the Cincinnati, he returned a very polite answer but men¬ 
tioned he “ could not sit at table with the Count de 
Noailles.” 3 The Count, although he had served in our 
war and was a member of the society, was manifestly no 
proper person to dine with, for was he not tainted with 
aristocracy? 

But soon the story changed. The collapse came through 
the privateers which Genet had fitted out and which came 
sailing back into American harbors with their booty 
,and their international complications. The attitude of the 
Government was firm and hostile. Fierce and arrogant 
and blustering was Genet, disposed to act in a rather high¬ 
handed manner with this stiff-necked and perverse admin¬ 
istration. “Your account of Genet is dreadful,” writes 
Madison to Jefferson in great alarm. “He must be ‘ 
brought right if possible. His folly will otherwise do mis¬ 
chief which no wisdom can repair.” 4 And we find Jeffer¬ 
son, who two months before was saying of Genet’s mission 
that it was “ impossible for anything to be more affec- 

1 Hist, of American Jacobinism, 15. 

2 Griswold, Republican Court, 350; Scharf & Westcott, Hist, of 
Phila., h 473-4. 

3 Fiddle, Autobiography, 253. 4 Madison’s Letters, I, 586. 





Opinions of Americans at Home. 185 

tionate, more magnanimous. ... In short, he offers 
everything and asks nothing,” now writing Gouverneur 
Morris that M. Genet had in the short time of his residence 
with us developed “ a character and conduct so unexpected 
and so extraordinary as to place us in the most distressing 
dilemma, between our regard for his nation, which is con¬ 
stant and sincere, and a regard for our laws, the authority of 
which must be maintained; for the peace of our country, 
which the executive magistrate is charged to preserve; for 
its honor offended in the person of that magistrate; and 
for its character, grossly traduced in the conversations and 
letters of this gentleman/’ To carry out his will Genet 
finally threatened to appeal to the people. He had over¬ 
reached himself—though even then there were newspapers 
that so far forgot their duty as to support him. Soon he 
was recalled and this mortifying episode was closed. 

Genet’s life in Philadelphia gave such an extraordinary 
elan to the extreme republican principles, was so successful 
in winning extravagant and indiscriminating applause for 
everything French, and widespread imitation here, that 
his opponents welcomed anything as an aid in overcom¬ 
ing him. Even the yellow fever plague that broke out 
that summer was considered in the line of punishment for 
having wandered so far from the true God. “ Can it ever 
be forgotten,” exclaims Graydon, who lived through all 
this, “ what a racket was made with the Citizen Genet? 
The most enthusiastic homage was too cold to welcome his 
arrival; and his being the first minister of the infant republic 
was dwelt upon as a most endearing circumstance. What 
hugging and tugging! What addressing and caressing! 
What mountebanking and chanting, with liberty caps and 
the other wretched trumpery of sansculotte foolery. . . . 
Such was the state of parties in the summer of 1793, when 
the metropolis of Pennsylvania, then resounding with un¬ 
hallowed orgies at the dismal butcheries in France, was 
visited with a calamity which had much the appearance 
which heaven sometimes sends to purify the heart ”—yellow 


186 


The French Revolution. 


fever. 1 Nor was this craze without its element of danger 
to the State, in the opinion of many. 

Referring to the excitement which prevailed in Philadel¬ 
phia in 1793-4, John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson 
written many years afterward, said: “You certainly never 
felt the terrorism excited by Genet in 1793 when ten thou¬ 
sand people in the streets of Philadelphia day after day 
threatened to drag Washington out of his house and effect 
a revolution in the government or compel it to declare war 
in favor of the French Revolution and against England. 
The coolest, the firmest minds even among the Quakers in 
Philadelphia have given their opinions to me that nothing 
but the yellow fever which removed Dr. Hutchinson and 
Jonathan Dickinson Sergeant from this world, could have 
saved the United States from a fatal revolution of gov¬ 
ernment.” 

Such then were some of those numberless celebrations 
of which the papers of that day are full, celebrations that 
were conducted in an atmosphere which was highly favor¬ 
able to hysteria. It would be difficult to color too highly 
the picture of the enthusiasm for the cause of France that 
found expression in this country in 1793 and 1794, stimu¬ 
lated and intensified, no doubt, though by no means caused 
by the ebullient Genet. It was the real French frenzy. 
There was much talk of the Rights of Man, of hydras and 
despots and cleansing of Augean stables. Every supposed 
lover of liberty, from Cato to William Tell and Thomas 
Paine, was toasted at a hundred convivial boards. Many 
were the wishes expressed in the toasts at these banquets, 
which are an illuminating historical evidence, that “ the 
rays of liberty might penetrate with the rapidity of light 
the remotest corners of the earth,” that “ the reign of 
philosophy might succeed to that of superstition and only 
end with time,” that the thrones of tyrants might be 
“ changed into guillotines, and the heads of all those who 
refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of the people be 


1 Graydon’s Memoirs, 335. 





Opinions of Americans at Home. 


187 


levelled”; that “the fair of America and France might 
give birth to none but Brutuses and Scaevolas”; that 
“ the Amazon Kate,” who was no other than Catharine of 
Russia, might “ live to see the rights of man prevail 
throughout her empire ”; that the banners of freedom 
might soon wave not only over Vienna, Berlin, and War¬ 
saw, but also over remote Ispahan and heathen Constanti¬ 
nople. Wherever liberty might be espied in any guise 
whatever, thither turned the thoughts of the feasters. They 
rose to toast “ Stanislas, Chief Citizen of Poland ”; “ George 
Washington, the Father of Freedom; Lafayette, Freedom’s 
Darling Son; Thomas Paine, the Clarion of Freedom”; 
“the Republic of Genoa”; “The Mountain: may tyranny 
be chained at its foot and may the light of liberty from its 
summit cheer and illuminate the whole world.” One' 
wished that “ hereditary folly ” might “ be hereditary with 
hereditary rank.” Another hoped that “ The Gallo-Colum- 
bian fraternity of freemen ” might be as durable as the 
ocean that divided those two favored lands; another longed 
to see a revolutionary tribunal in Great Britain to “ give 
lessons of Liberty to her King, examples of Justice to her 
Ministry, and Honesty to her corrupt Legislature.” The 
broadest idealism was apparent in some. An altruistic Bos¬ 
tonian arose in 1795 to drink to “All Mankind.” Another, 
proposing a similar toast—to “ The Great Family of Man¬ 
kind,” added, “ May the distinction of nation and language 
be lost in the association of freedom and of friendship till 
the inhabitants of the various sections of the globe be dis¬ 
tinguished only by their virtues and their talents,” and 
another expressed his hope that the time would soon come 
when the Rights of Man should be recognized as “ the 
supreme law of every land and their separate fraternities be 
absorbed in one great democratic society comprehending 
the human race.” 

The enthusiasm of Americans could not exhaust itself in 
pne round of festivities. Repeatedly during this and suc¬ 
ceeding years right down to 1797, when our troubles with 



188 


The French Revolution. 


France broke out under John Adams, they came to¬ 
gether in honor of their “ magnanimous allies ” and to drink 
to those radiant abstractions to which men were so fond 
of drinking in those days. They celebrated Washington’s 
birthday, often apparently with less attention to Washing¬ 
ton than to the French. February 6th, the date of the 
formation of the Franco-American alliance; May ist, St. 
Tammany’s day; the anniversary of Bunker Hill; the 4th 
of July; the 14th of July; the 10th of August; the 22d of 
September, these latter days of no direct significance to 
America, though of the greatest in the calendar of France; 
Thanksgiving day, and the anniversary of the surrender of 
Yorktown were often celebrated and in a thoroughly 
French style. 1 

DEMOCRATIC SOCIETIES. 

Suddenly this great popular ferment produced something 
new and unexpected, and ominous in the political life of 
the young republic, of which she was destined to have more 
than one disquieting experience in the future. Secret 
political organizations made their appearance. The swift¬ 
ness of the rise and spread of Democratic Societies in this 
country is a striking witness to the turmoil and passion of 
that moment, a turmoil and passion from which they 
seemed to emerge spontaneously, and which they in turn 
plentifully re-inforced. No one can read very far into the 
history of these years without seeing unmistakably the 
fervor and the virulence, the consternation, the exultation, 
the vague fear, the positive and sharply defined hatred 


1 The following are a few of the numberless references to such 
events in the papers of the day: Bache’s Aurora, March 4, July 31, 
August 13 and 15, 1793; February 8 and 12, 1794; February 9, 1795. 
Independent Chronicle, July 25, August 2 and 15, 1793; January 23, 
March 20, May 19, July 17, August 18, 1794; February 25, April 9, 
20, 30, September 24, 1795; March 7, July 7, 1796. American Daily 
Advertiser, February 14, May 5, 1794; February 9, 1797. Boston 
Gazette, August 19, 1793. Columbian Centinel, July 16, 1794. ' Fed¬ 
eral Orrery, June 15, 1795; September 26, October 20, 1796. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 189 

aroused by these new institutions among different classes 
of Americans. They added immensely to the bitterness of 
party strife. Fierce of utterance themselves, they called 
forth equal fierceness of opposition. They fostered certain 
tendencies that needed no such encouragement, a willing¬ 
ness to borrow joy or trouble from the fate of others, a dis¬ 
position to mix in affairs not one’s own. They lived a 
noisy life and after awhile subsided, having exerted a doubt¬ 
ful influence and leaving behind them an unpleasant mem¬ 
ory. It is well to enquire briefly into the character and 
purposes of societies that in their day created so much stir. 

A few days after Genet’s arrival in Philadelphia, “ The 
Democratic Society of Pennsylvania ” was organized in 
that city. The reasons for its creation, its temper, and a 
certain temper of the times may best be seen in “ The 
Principles, Articles, and Regulations ” which were drawn 
up and adopted May 30, 1793, and which were printed in 
the papers all over the country. 1 These “ Principles, 
Articles and Regulations” are: 

“ The Rights of Man, the genuine objects of Society, 
and the legitimate principles of Government, have been 
clearly developed by the successive revolutions of America 
and France. Those events have withdrawn the veil which 
concealed the dignity and the happiness of the human 
race, and have taught us, no longer dazzled with adventi¬ 
tious splendor, or awed by antiquated usurpation, to erect 
the temple of LIBERTY on the ruins of palaces and thrones. \ 

“ At this propitious period, when the nature of freedom 
and equality is thus practically displayed, and when their 
value (best understood by those who have paid the price 
of acquiring them) is universally acknowledged, the 
patriotic mind will naturally be.' solicitous, by every proper 
precaution, to preserve and perpetuate the blessings which 
Providence hath bestowed upon our country; for, in review- 


x The one quoted here is “ Th,e National Gazette,” July 17, 1793. 
The document may be found in part, together with the accompany¬ 
ing circular, in Dallas’s Life of Dallas, pp. 56-58- 



190 


The French Revolution. 


ing the history of nations, we find occasion to lament, that 
the vigilance of the people has been too easily absorbed in 
victory; and that the prize which has been achieved by the 
wisdom and valor of one generation, has too often been lost 
by the ignorance and supineness of another. 

“ With a view, therefore, to cultivate a just knowledge of 
rational liberty, to facilitate the enjoyment and exercise of 
our civil rights, and to transmit, unimpaired, to posterity, 
the glorious inheritance of a free republican government , the 
Democratic Society of Pennsylvania is constituted and 
established. Unfettered by religious or national distinctions, 
unbiassed by party, and unmoved by ambition, this institu¬ 
tion embraces the interest and invites the support of every 
virtuous citizen. The public good is indeed its sole object, 
and we think that the best means are pursued for obtaining 
it, when we recognize the following as the fundamental 
principles of our organization: 

I. That the people have the inherent and exclusive right 
and power of making and altering forms of government; 
and that for regulating and protecting our social interests, a 
Republican Government is the most natural and bene¬ 
ficial form, which the wisdom of man has devised. 

II. That the republican constitutions of the United 
States and of the State of Pennsylvania, being framed 
and established by the people, it is our duty, as good citi¬ 
zens, to support them. And in order effectually to do so, 
it is likewise the duty of every freeman to regard with 
attention, and to discuss without fear, the conduct of the 
public servants, in every department of government. 

III. That in considering the administration of public 
affairs, men and measures should be estimated according 
to their intrinsic merits; and therefore, regardless of party 
spirit or political connection, it is the duty of every citizen, 
by making the general welfare the rule of his conduct, to 
aid and approve those men and measures, which have an 
influence in promoting the prosperity of the commonwealth. 

IV. That in the choice of persons to fill the offices of 


Opinions of Americans at Home. 191 

government, it is essential to the existence of a free republic, 
that every citizen should act according to his own judg¬ 
ment, and therefore any attempt to corrupt or delude the 
people in exercising the rights of suffrage, either by prom¬ 
ising the favor of one candidate or traducing the character 
of another, is an offence equally injurious to moral rectitude 
and civil liberty. 

V. That the People of Pennsylvania form but one indivis¬ 
ible community, whose political rights and interests, whose 
national honor and prosperity, must, in degree and dura¬ 
tion, be forever the same; and, therefore, it is the duty of 
every free man, and shall be the endeavor of the Demo¬ 
cratic Society, to remove the prejudices, to conciliate the 
affections, to enlighten the understanding, and to promote 
the happiness of all our fellow citizens.” 

Such are the official principles—not very ominous, not 
very exciting. Then follows the constitution. The society 
is to be co-extensive with the State, but for the convenience 
of members there shall be chapters or “ meetings,” as they 
are called, in each county that chooses to adopt the consti¬ 
tution. A member admitted in any “ meeting ’’ is a mem¬ 
ber of the Society at large and may attend any of the meet¬ 
ings wherever held. Members are admitted by majority 
vote after having been proposed a suitable length of time. 
Provision is made for officers and their election. The most 
important of these seems to be the “ Corresponding Com¬ 
mittee ” of five members, whose duty is to correspond 
“ with the various meetings of the Societies, and with all 
other Societies that may be established on similar princi¬ 
ples, in any other of the United States.” 

Now the platitudes cease and the real motive of the 
Society is revealed in the “ Circular Letter ordered to be 
sent to the Counties,” which follows: 

“Fellow Citizen: 

We have the pleasure to communicate to you a copy of 
the constitution of the Democratic Society, in hopes, that 


192 


The French Revolution. 


after a candid consideration of its principles and objects, 
you may be induced to promote its adoption in the county 
of which you are an inhabitant. 

“ Every mind capable of reflection must perceive that the 
present crisis in the politics of nations is peculiarly inter¬ 
esting to America. The European confederacy, transcend¬ 
ent in power, and unparalleled in iniquity, menaces the 
very existence of freedom. Already its baneful operation 
may be traced in the tyrannical destruction of the constitu¬ 
tion, and the rapacious partition of the territory of Poland; 
and should the glorious efforts of France be eventually 
defeated, we have reason to presume, that, for the consum¬ 
mation of monarchical ambition, and the security of its 
establishments, this country, the only remaining deposi¬ 
tory of liberty, will not long be permitted to enjoy in peace 
the honors of an independent, and the happiness of a repub¬ 
lican government. 

“ Nor are the dangers arising from a foreign source the 
only causes, at this time, of apprehension and solicitude. 
The seeds of luxury appear to have taken root in our 
domestic soil; and the jealous eye of patriotism already 
regards the spirit of freedom and equality as eclipsed by 
the pride of wealth, and the arrogance of power. 

“ This general view of our situation has led to the insti¬ 
tution of ‘ The Democratic Society.’ A constant circula¬ 
tion of useful information, and a liberal communication of 
republican sentiments, were thought to be the best antidotes 
to any political poison with which the vital principles of 
civil liberty might be attacked; for, by such means, a frater¬ 
nal confidence will be established among the citizens; every 
symptom of innovation will be studiously marked; and a 
standard will be erected to which, in danger or distress, 
the friends of liberty may successfully resort. 

“To obtain these objects then, and to cultivate on all 
occasions the love of peace, order, and harmony; an attach¬ 
ment to the constitutions and a respect to the laws of our 
country, will be the aim of ‘ The Democratic Society.’ 


Opinions of Americans at Home. 193 

Party and personal considerations are excluded from a 
system of this nature; for in the language of the articles 
under which we are united, men and measures will only 
be estimated according to their intrinsic merits, and their 
influence in promoting the prosperity of the state. 

“ From you, citizen, we hope to derive essential aid, in 
extending the Society and maintaining its general princi¬ 
ples. We request therefore an early attention to the sub¬ 
ject, and solicit a constant correspondence.” 1 

In the “ Declaration ” sent out by “ The Massachusetts 
Constitutional Society,” soon formed in Boston, we dis¬ 
cover still further the animus of these new organizations: 

“ Under a Constitution which expressly provides ‘ That 
the people have a right in an orderly and peaceable manner to 
assemble and consult upon the common good / there can be 
no necessity for an apology to the public for an Association 
of a number of citizens to promote and cherish the social 
virtues, the love of their country and a respect for its Laws 
and Constitutions; nor can it be derogatory to Freemen 
in America to declare their attachment to Universal Liberty 
and openly to profess a sacred regard to the great principles 
of Natural Equality.” 

After having set up a government, citizens ought not to 
resign it into the hands of agents—whither does this tend 
but toward despotism? We conceive “that it is the right 
and duty of every Freeman, to watch with the vigilance 
of a faithful centinel the conduct of those to whom is in¬ 
trusted the administration of Government, that they pass 
not the sacred barriers of the Constitution.” 

“ Predicated on these principles the members of this As¬ 
sociation have united and agreed to meet in whole, or in 
such parts as may be expedient, to converse together for 
the purpose of gaining and communicating information on 
the affairs of their country; to express with decency and 


1 The constitution, circular and other explanatory papers were 
first drafted by Alexander James Dallas. See Life and Writings 
of Alexander James Dallas by his son, George Mifflin Dallas, 55-56. 



194 


The French Revolution. 


firmness, their sentiments respecting the measures adopted 
by their Delegates, and to offer their opinions with candor 
on matters of political concernment. 

“As Freemen we publicly declare that we adore the 
cause of Liberty, wherever it may be in exertion; and our 
wishes and our prayers are frequently engaged against the 
Despots of the Earth. 

“We are persuaded that the present struggles of the 
French People are directed to the subversion of Aristocracy 
and Despotism, and to the lasting improvement and happi¬ 
ness of the human race, as they are founded on the Equal 
Rights of Men. 

“ With such objects in view and on these principles, the 
particular form of administering their government in detail, 
we consider, at present, unessential. But on the accom¬ 
plishment of the great objects of their Revolution, depends 
not only the future happiness and prosperity of Frenchmen, 
but in our opinion of the whole World of Mankind. Their 
success will put an effectual check to the progress of des¬ 
potic ambition, while the failure of so great and gallant a 
nation would encourage the Despots of the earth to aspire 
to the hope of extinguishing the spirit of Liberty perhaps 
in every other part of the globe. When, in addition to this, 
we recollect the generous assistance, which N the French 
nation afforded us, in the day of our distress and danger, 
we cannot but wish that the Great Ruler of the universe 
had placed it within our power to reciprocate their friend¬ 
ship, by aiding them in the establishment of that Liberty, 
for which they are now bleeding with so much firmness and 
magnanimity.” 1 

The reasons then that led Americans to form their first 
secret political societies were suspicion of the government, 
envy of those in power, ardent and excited attachment to 
France, ill-concealed hatred of England as the arch-despot 
—a hatred that in some of the constitutions was openly and 

1 Boston Gazette, Jan. 20, 1794; Independent Chronicle, Jan. 16, 
1794 - 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


195 


bitterly expressed, as in that of the Democratic Society of 
Chittenden County, Vermont. 1 2 

The invitation sent out by the Philadelphia Society for 
the formation of affiliated societies met with a quick re¬ 
sponse. These new democratic organizations sprang up 
in almost every part of the Union, all proclaiming the same 
purpose of sleepless vigilance of the Government, a deter¬ 
mination to rescue the people from its oppression or cor¬ 
ruption, to maintain the Rights of Man undimmed, all 
marked by the same warmth of feeling for our “ magnani- v. 
mous ally,” and from all there issued great clouds of circu¬ 
lars and addresses couched in the current political vernacular 
of France. In the newspapers of the day I have seen men¬ 
tion of societies in Charleston, Baltimore, Philadelphia, 
New York, Boston, Portland; in Pinckney (S. C.), in Lex¬ 
ington, Paris, Georgetown, Danville, Kentucky; in Wythe 
County, Virginia; Washington and Lancaster, Pennsyl¬ 
vania; Newcastle, Delaware; Chittenden, Bennington, Addi¬ 
son, Rutland and Cumberland counties, Vermont, and 
these certainly were but a small number of those in exist¬ 
ence from Maine to Georgia.' Their ideas and feelings 
were almost wholly French, their chief aim was to propa¬ 
gate extreme democratic doctrines. The society at Charles¬ 
ton even went so far as to petition the Jacobin Club in 


1 Spooner’s Vermont Journal, April / 2i, 1794. 

2 The certificate of membership in these societies ran as follows: 

“ To all other societies established on principles of Liberty , 
Equality , Union , Patriotic Virtue and Perseverance; We, the members 
of the Republican Society of Baltimore, certify and declare to all 
' Republican or Democratic societies, and to all Republicans indi¬ 
vidually, that citizen - hath been admitted and now is a 

member of our society, and that, from his warm zeal to promote 
Republican principles and the rights of humanity, we have granted 
him this our certificate (which he has signed in the margin) and 
do recommend him to all Republicans, that they may receive him 
with fraternity, which we offer to all those who may come to us 
with similar credentials. In witness whereof, etc.” Harper’s Cy¬ 
clopedia of United States History, 382. The seal of the Baltimore 
society was composed of a figure of Liberty, with pileus, Phrygian 
cap and fasces, with the name of the society. 




196 


The French Revolution. 


Paris for the honor of adoption. The request met with 
some opposition on the ground that Americans did not 
deserve such a favor, as they had not yet shed their blood 
in the cause of France. The Americans, however, found 
a friend in Collot d’Herbois, who urged that the bestowal of 
the desired honor would “ have a tendency to induce the 
Americans to discharge their obligations/’ This argu¬ 
ment won the day and the petition was granted. 1 

These clubs at once threw themselves into the current of 
American politics, stirring up the mud generally. They 
filled the land with the noise of criticism. Attacking most 
of the measures of the Government and pretending to speak 
in the name of “ the people,” they added an uproar to our 
political life, disproportionate, probably, to the real weight 
of their numbers. 

At their meetings resolutions galore were adopted and 
their publication “ by the Republican Printers throughout 
the country ” demanded and obtained. These resolutions 
have their own significance. The Philadelphia Society re¬ 
solved “ That we view with inexpressible horror the cruel 
and unjust war carried on by the combined powers of 
Europe against the republic of France,” and that “ we 
ought to resist to the utmost of our power all attempts 
to alienate our affections from France and detach us from 


1 The following is a quotation from a French paper printed in the 
Independent Chronicle, March 17, 1794. reporting a session of the 
Paris Jacobin Club of October, 1793: 

“ The Republican Society in Charleston, in Carolina, one of the 
United States of America, demanded of the Jacobin Club its adop¬ 
tion. 

Hautier.—We have spilt our blood for the establishment of 
America, and think that the Americans ought to do the same for 
us before we grant them adoption. 

A Citizen.—Before engaging them to intermeddle with our war 
it is necessary to understand one another, to come do an agreement 
with them. I do not see then a more efficacious way for the pre¬ 
vious reunion than the adoption of their society. 

Collot d’Herbois.—We should not neglect the advantages which 
may arise from this request. I conclude that we agree to this 
adoption. Resolved.” 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


197 


her alliance.” 1 2 This was long after Washington’s Procla¬ 
mation of Neutrality. The Charleston Society writes to 
the brethren that be in Philadelphia as follows: “ In con¬ 
templating the present situation of our country, we antici¬ 
pate with uncommon satisfaction, the benefits which will be 
rendered to her by the formation of societies in different 
parts of the Union, upon the same principles and having 
the same views of the Democratic Society of Philadelphia,” 
and adds, “Although we cannot but lament as men the 
amazing want of Republicanism, which now forms a con¬ 
spicuous trait in the characters composing the highest 
offices in the Federal Government; although we observe 
with indignation that aristocratic pride and mistaken ambi¬ 
tion have for some time past been gaining daily ground 
among us; yet we hope fully that from the steady, spirited, 
and persevering virtue of a few, the whole will be brought 
once again to think and to act as becomes the character of 
a free people; and that from a just reflection a conviction 
in their minds shall arise to prove that the true happiness of 
a nation consists in a simple purity of manners, which will 
always lead them to prefer honor, even with poverty, to 
the splendor of riches and titles obtained by sacrificing pub¬ 
lic honor and national faith and virtue.”* Later this same 
Charleston Society “ contemplating the daring outrages 
and diabolical machinations of the British Court, and the 
evil intrigues now practised by her agents and emissaries, 
to undertake and destroy the liberty and happiness of 
America; and holding it just and laudable to call the atten¬ 
tion of our fellow citizens to the alarming situation of 
public affairs, do hereby submit to their consideration the 
sense entertained of these important circumstances, and 
resolved as follows: 

Resolved, That it is the peculiar privilege of the citizens 
of the United States, to meet at all times and on all occa¬ 
sions peaceably to pursue the best means for obtaining and 


1 Bache’s General Advertiser, Jan. 13, 1794. 

2 Ibid. April 3, 1794. 



198 


The French Revolution. 


preserving the public happiness and freely to investigate or 
censure or approve the conduct of all persons in public em¬ 
ployment, and to submit their opinions to the sense of the 
community. 

Resolved , That this Society view with indignation the 
conduct of certain members of Congress, one of these a rep¬ 
resentative from Charleston district; being convinced from 
the whole tenor of their actions and debates in Congress, 
they are possessed of the basest and most dangerous prin¬ 
ciples; that far from being republicans they are indifferent 
to the repeated insults offered the American flag, and the 
repeated depredations committed on the property of the 
citizens of America; that in addition to such insults and 
depredations, the detention of the western posts, contrary 
to express treaty; supplies to the Indians, our deadly foes; 
the treaty devised and concluded by the British govern¬ 
ment, to set the Algerines upon our commerce, are to them 
but trifles, when compared to the prosperity of the funds in 
which, by their infamous speculations, they are become 
deeply interested. 

Resolved , That it is our opinion that war is inevitable; 
we cannot therefore be too early in making preparations; 
we therefore recommend that such other forts should with¬ 
out delay be erected, as will secure this State from depre¬ 
dations and insult; and that it is the duty of all good re¬ 
publican citizens to provide themselves as speedily as pos¬ 
sible with such implements of war as may be necessary for 
their defence. 

Resolved , That proclamations are intended only as pro¬ 
mulgations of laws constitutionally enacted, to inform the 
citizens, who, in consequence of the attention necessary to 
their various occupations, may require such information; 
or, proclamations may with propriety be made to give warn¬ 
ing of the approach of any public calamity, or to announce 
to the people the day and place of any public act; but when 
any person or set of men in office, instead of announcing 
only the laws of the land, attempt by proclamation to de¬ 
clare his or their own will or determination as the sovereign 


Opinions of Americans at Home . 


199 


rule, binding on the people, the judges, and the courts of 
justice; such an exercise of power is unconstitutional, 
tyrannical, arbitrary, and in the highest degree dangerous, 
an usurpation of authority of the most despotic nature, and 
a direct attack upon the liberties of the people. 

Resolved , That all public officers are appointed under the 
Constitution, their political creator and ruler, and they are 
but the servants of the public. 

Resolved, That treaties solemnly made with nations which 
act with sincere friendship and preserve zealously their 
faith towards us, ought to be inviolably adhered to and 
guarded from infraction at every risque; that the cause of 
France is our own; that our interest, liberty and public hap¬ 
piness are involved in her fate; that we are bound to support 
her by every tye of principle and gratitude as well as a prin¬ 
ciple of self-preservation; that for any man or set of men, 
either in private or public and particularly those to whom 
the welfare of our community is intrusted, to advocate doc¬ 
trines and principles derogatory to the cause of France, or 
her commerce with America, or in support of the base 
measures of the combined despots of Europe, particularly 
Great Britain, is a convincing manifestation of sentiments 
treacherous and hostile to the interest of the United States, 
and well deserves the severest censure from all true repub¬ 
lican citizens of America.” 1 



Many of the matters upon which these societies resolved 
were of purely local importance, but most of them concerned 
more or less directly our foreign relations, and into these 
they sought to introduce strong French partisanship. 
One society resolved in favor of governmental protection of 
infant manufactures; 2 many in favor of the navigation of the 
Mississippi; 8 many against the excise laws. But first and 
most unanimously they declared against Washington’^ 
policy of neutrality. Government “ by proclamation ” was 
widely denounced as a most portentous usurpation. Some 

1 Independent Chronicle, April 18, 1794 - 


Boston Gazette, May 26, 1794. 3 Minerva, April 17, 1794. 


\ 



200 


The French Revolution. 


of these societies did not claim that we ought to take part in 
the war on the side of France, yet they at the same time de¬ 
nounced the President’s policy as base ingratitude. Here, 
then, just at the first critical juncture of our foreign relations, 
were numbers of energetic and noisy associations all over the 
land doing their best directly or indirectly to foil, impede 
or overthrow the only policy that wisdom could recom¬ 
mend. The vehemence of their criticism of this policy— 
of the Proclamation and all that grew out of it—the Jay 
mission in particular—grew apace. Their activity tended 
to break up all neutrality, to drive us into an alliance with 
France, if with any one, and to assume a hostile attitude 
toward England. 

The New York Society, a few days after Mr. Jay’s de¬ 
parture, proceeded to smite that gentleman in an address 
to the people. “We take pleasure in avowing that we are 
lovers of the French nation; that we esteem their cause as 
our own. We most firmly believe that he who is an enemy 
to the French revolution cannot be a firm republican; and 
therefore, though he may be a good citizen in other re¬ 
spects, ought not to be intrusted with the guidance of any 
part of the machine of government.” A Pennsylvania So¬ 
ciety declared that the President had no right to proclaim 
this country neutral—that came only within the competence 
of the legislature; it even denied that neutrality was the 
duty or true interest of the United States and loudly de¬ 
nounced the mission to England and the envoy himself be¬ 
cause of “ his high standing in the community.” “ The 
Revolution of France,” it was said, “ had sufficiently proved 
that generals may be taken from the ranks, and ministers of 
state from the obscurity of the most remote village. Is our 
president, like the grand sultan of Constantinople, shut up 
in his appartment and unacquainted with all talents and 
capacities but those of the seraskier or mufti who happens 
to be about him? ” 1 2 


1 The Life and Writings of John Jay, by his son, William Jay. 

2 vols., New York, 1833. On Democratic Societies see I, 315-321. 
See also Independent Chronicle, May 19, 1794, for bitter denuncia¬ 
tion of Jay’s appointment by one of these societies. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


201 


tierce was the wrath of the Democratic Society in Wythe 
County, Virginia, at various things that were happening. 
This soon found vent in an “ Address to the People of 
the United States,” which ran as follows: 

“ Fellow Citizens: 

“It is a right of the people peaceably to assemble and 
deliberate; it is a right of the people to publish their senti¬ 
ments. These rights we exercise and esteem invaluable. 

“A war raging in Eu rope, a war of tyrants against liberty, 
ca'hnoCbe'unfelt by”fKe people of th e United States; it has 

******^* ^~ u i rn" mmm 1,1 ■ i *****^ i 111 " lirir ~ »u. * l>t> 

roused our feelings. We have rejoiced when victory fol¬ 
lowed the standards of liberty. When despots were suc¬ 
cessful we have experienced the deepest anxiety. We have 
lamented that our good wishes were the only aid we could 
give the French. 

“ Among the different powers combined against the 
rights of man we have marked the British nation, the 
champion of despotism. With indignation we have heard 
their insolent dictates to the small neutral powers of Europe, 
to join in the subjugation of France. With sorrow we have 
seen every principle of liberty, hitherto retained by the 
people of Britain, violated by its present corrupt govern¬ 
ment and their most virtuous inhabitants transported to 
foreign lands or going into voluntary exile. But we hope 
these things will ultimately. produce good and that there 
is still a latent spark, which by excessive friction, will kindle 
to a flame and will consume the rotten edifice of the British 
government, on the ruins of which another may arise, the 
basis whereof shall be justice, liberty and equality. 

“ While with anxious expectation we contemplate the 
affairs of Europe, it will be criminal to forget our own 
country. A session of Congress having just passed, the 
first in which the people were equally represented, it is a 
fit time to take a retrospective view of the proceedings of 
government. We have watched each motion of those in 
power, but are sorry we cannot exclaim ‘ well done, thou 
good and faithful servant.’ We have seen the nation in- 






202 


The French Revolution. 


suited, our rights violated, our commerce ruined—and what 
has been the conduct of government? Under the corrupt 
influence of the paper system, it has uniformly crouched to 
Britain; while, on the contrary, our allies, the French, to 
whom we owe our political existence, have been treated 
unfriendly; denied any advantages from their treaties with 
us; their Minister abused; and those individuals among us, 
who desired to aid their arms, prosecuted as traitors—blush 
Americans for the conduct of your government. 

‘‘Citizens! Shall we Americans who have kindled the 
spark of liberty stand aloof and see it extinguished when 
burning a bright flame in France, which hath caught it 
from us? Do you not see if despots prevail, you must 
have a despot like the rest of the nations. If all tyrants 
unite against free people, should not all free people unite 
against tyrants? Yes! Let us unite with France and stand 
or fall together. 

“We lament that a man who hath so long possessed the 
public confidence, as the head of the executive department 
hath possessed it, should put it to so severe a trial as he 
hath by a late appointment. The constitution hath been 
trampled on, and your rights have no security. 

“ Citizens! What is despotism? Is it not a union of 
executive, legislative and judicial authorities in the same 
hands? This union then has been effected. Your chief- 
justice has been appointed to an executive office, by the 
head of that branch of government: In that capacity he is 
to make Treaties. Those treaties are your supreme law, 
and of this supreme law he is supreme judge!! What has 
become of your constitution and liberties? 

“Fellow Citizens! 

“We hope the misconduct of the executive may have 
proceeded from bad advice; but we can only look to the 
immediate cause of the mischief. To us it seems a radical 
change of measures is necessary. How shall this be ef¬ 
fected? Citizens! It is to be effected by a change of men. 
Deny the continuance of your confidence to such members 


Opinions of Americans at Home. 


203 


of the legislative body as have an interest distinct from that 
of the people. To trust yourselves to stockholders, what 
is it, but like the Romans, to deliver the poor debtor to his 
creditor, as his absolute property. To trust yourselves to 
speculators, what is it but to commit the lamb to the wolf 
to be devoured. 

“ It was recommended by the conventions of some of the 
states, so to amend the constitution, as to incapacitate any 
man to serve as president more than eight years succes¬ 
sively. Consider well this experiment. *Tis probably the 
most certain way to purge the different departments and 
produce a new state of things. 

“ Believe us, fellow-citizens, the public welfare is our only 
motive.” 1 

Such then were the methods of these secret organizations 
that arose so quickly and spread so rapidly throughout the 
Union. They aimed to rescue the free institutions of the 
land, to safeguard the Rights of Man. How these were 
threatened it would be difficult to see, or in what mysteri¬ 
ous manner they were to be saved by little organized cliques. 
Though really representing but a part of the community, 
and surely in many sections but a small part, they loudly 
pretended to be the voice of the people. When their right 
to be considered the authoritative organ of public opinion 
was questioned, they drew themselves up solemnly and 
reaffirmed that they were. For instance, when the editor 
of one of the papers suggested, under the title “ Great Cry 
and Little Wool,” that the Democratic Society of Chit¬ 
tenden County, which published addresses twelve columns 
long, consisted of only twelve members, the impressive 
reply came from out the heart of the hills, “ We are eighty- 
four citizens of the County of Chittenden, and State of Vei 
mont, amongst whom are eight members of the Legislature 
—all the General Officers of the County—the High Sheriff 
—the majority of the Bench—and all the Bar, except two, 


Undependent Chronicle, Aug. n, 1794. 



204 


The French Revolution. 


whom prudence has as yet prevented asking for admission.” 1 
It was elsewhere asserted that its members were “ as 
respectable characters as the vicinity can produce.” 2 

The effect produced by these societies was soon evident. 
The fierceness of the opposition was equal to the vehemence 
of the societies themselves. “ It is well known here, writes 
Oliver Wolcott from Philadelphia, that these popular socie¬ 
ties speak the sentiments of certain demagogues, and that 
the clubs consist of hot-headed, ignorant, or wicked men, 
devoted entirely to the views of France.” 8 Patrick Henry 
wrote that, although a Democrat himself, he did not like 
the Democratic Societies. 4 Fisher Ames, speaking of a 
recent meeting of the Boston club in Faneuil Hall, said: 
“ This is bold and everything really shows the fixed pur¬ 
pose of their leaders to go to desperate lengths. It is a 
pleasant thing for the yeomanry to see their own govern¬ 
ment taken out of their hands and themselves cipherized 
by a rabble formed into a club. Thus Boston may play 
Paris, and rule the State,” 5 and later he said that, though 
right-minded men despised these clubs, still it was not safe 
to make light of your enemy. “They poison every spring; 
they whisper lies to every gale; they are everywhere, always 
acting like Old Nick and his imps. Such foes are to be 
feared as well as despised. They wait in silence for occa¬ 
sions, and when they occur, out they come and carry their 
points. They will be as busy as Macbeth’s witches at the 
election, and all agree that the event is very doubtful.” 6 
Others dubbed them “ demoniacal ” clubs instead of 
democratical, and “ nurseries of sedition.” 7 Unbounded was 
the hatred of the Federalists for these annoying intruders. 8 
That these clubs were a turbulent and troublesome element 


1 Independent Chronicle, March 2, 1795. 

2 Vermont Gazette, Feb. 13, 1795. 3 Gibbs, Memoirs, I, 134. 

4 William Wirt Henry, Life, Correspondence and Speeches of 

Patrick Henry, II, 551. 

5 Fisher Ames’ Works, edited by Seth Ames, I, 146-147. 

8 Ibid. I, 148. 7 Gibbs, Memoirs, I, 179. 

8 Morison, Life of Jeremiah Smith, pp. 61-64. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


205 


in our politics cannot be gainsaid. Such was their tireless 
persistence that William Cobbett ventured “ to say without 
running the risk of contradiction, that more enmity to the 
General Government was excited in the space of six months 
by the barefaced correspondencies and resolves of these 
clubs, than was excited against the colonial government at 
the time of the Declaration of Independence,” 1 but then 


William Cobbett would venture to assert almost anything 
against the Democrats. This animosity finally found dan¬ 
gerous utterance in the Whiskey Insurrection of 1794. 
Washington himself believed that the rebellion in Pennsyl¬ 
vania had been fomented largely by the Democratic clubs— 
largely in order to impair his own influence and embarrass 
the administration, and in his message to Congress that year 
he denounced them as “ certain self-created societies,” that 
had “ assumed the tone of condemnation ” of the Govern¬ 
ment’s measures, hoping “ by a more formal concert ” to 
defeat their operation. 2 3 

Great was the joy of the Federalists at this denunciation 
of the odious clubs, coming from so weighty a source. 
Eagerly did they seize the words as weapons with which to 
work their destruction. Jeremiah Smith, writing from 
Congress, said that the President’s speech was very popular 
with the friends of the Government, that it was too appli¬ 
cable to the Democratic clubs to admit of any doubt. “ We 
smile and they pout. Let their mortification be increased 
tenfold.” 8 In the Senate it was easy to secure an answer 
to the President’s message in which the societies were de¬ 
nounced in the same words. In the lower House, however, 
the Democrats made a stand and dragged the debate 
through several days. Mr. Giles, who was one of their 
leading spokesmen, said ‘‘ that when he saw or thought he 
saw the House of Representatives about to erect itself into 


1 History of the American Jacobins, 1796, 23. 

2 Annals of Congress, Nov. 19, I794> and sequiter for the signifi- 
cant debate that grew out of this remark in the President’s speech. 

3 Morison, Life of Jeremiah Smith, p. 65. 




206 


The French Revolution . 


an office of censorship, he could not sit silent.” He quib¬ 
bled with the plain meaning of the words “ self-created,” 
saying that “there was not an individual in America who 
might not come under the charge of being a member of 
some one or other self-created society ”—religious, political, 
philosophical, as the case might be. “ The Baptists and 
Methodists, for example, might be termed self-created 
societies.” And how about the Cincinnati? It would be 
well for Congress to studiously refrain from all legislation 
aiming to restrict public opinion directly or indirectly. If 
these societies are unlawful—let the law take its course— 
no further laws are necessary. If they are not unlawful, 
further legislation is unwise and inexpedient. Mr. Smith 
(of South Carolina) said that “ he was a friend to the free¬ 
dom of the press, but would any one compare a regular 
town-meeting, where deliberations were cool and unruffled, 
to these societies, to the nocturnal meetings of individuals, 
after they have dined, where they shut their doors, pass 
votes in secret, and admit no members into their societies 
but those of their own choosing.” Mr. Tracy believed in 
answering them. To be sure whenever a subject of that 
kind was brought up “ there were certain gentlemen in that 
House, who shook their backs, like a sore-backed horse, 
and cried out ‘ The Liberties of the people.’ ” But as for 
him, he thought that the declaration of the House would 
discourage these societies “ by uniting all men of sense 
against them.” Mr. Christie said that he was sorry to see 
men attempting to “ saddle a public odium on some of the 
best citizens of the State which he represented.” He men¬ 
tioned the Republican Society of Baltimore, which he 
affirmed consisted of gentlemen—men who were superior 
to any censure that Congress might seek to throw upon 
them. Indeed, they were “ a band of patriots, not the 
fair-weather patriots of the present day, but the patriots of 
seventy-five.” They should be rather praised, for at the 
very beginning of the late insurrection they offered to go 
and help suppress it. 


Opinions of Americans at Home. 207 

Mr. Sedgwick approved the condemnation. It “ would 
have a tendency to plunge these societies into contempt 
and to sink them still farther into abhorrence and detesta¬ 
tion/’ He pronounced them to be illicit combinations. 
“ Will the American people perversely propose to shoulder 
and bolster up these despised and repenting societies which 
are now tumbling into dust and contempt. Their conduct 
differed as far from a fair and honorable investigation as 
Christ and Belial. They were men prowling in the dark. 

. . . From Portland in Maine to the other'end of the Con¬ 
tinent, have they ever approved of one single act?” 

The House finally adopted a milder form of reference to 
these societies and the incident was closed as far as Con¬ 
gress was concerned. 1 

The official displeasure of the President was a heavy blow 
to the societies, but they endeavored to hold their ground. 
Society after society passed long resolutions showing that 
it had disapproved any disobedience of the law—that it had 
not favored, but had censured the Insurrection. But they 
denounced any attempts to muzzle men. The Independent 
Chronicle at first assumed an attitude of cold scorn of all 
assailants of the Societies. “ What a continual yelping and 
barking are our Swindlers, Aristocrats, Refugees and 
British Agents making at the Constitutional Societies. 
But how gratifying must it be to the friends of Constitu¬ 
tional Government to observe these societies proceeding in 
the paths of patriotic virtue with a composure and dignity 
which become men engaged in such important and timely 
service. Thus have we seen a noble mastiff proceeding 
on his way, without deigning even to cast a look upon the 
impotent and noisy puppies at his heels.” 2 

The Republican Society of Baltimore, noticing the de¬ 
nunciation of the President, took occasion to say in its 
address of defence that it had from the beginning disap¬ 
proved the Insurrection, and then it asked if “ dungeons and 


1 See Annals of Congress, Nov. 1794 . 

2 Independent Chronicle, Sept. 18 , 1794- 




208 


The French Revolution. 


chains and death ” await the man who would “ dare to ex¬ 
press disapprobation which he felt respecting the measures 
of government.” 1 The Democratic Society of New York, 
in an address five columns long, also defended the right 
of these organizations to exist. “ Free investigation ” 
is threatened. These societies may well serve as guardians 
of liberty. “ How has it happened that Athens and Sparta, 
once the celebrated seats of Liberty, once the boast of phil¬ 
osophers, the pride of Greece, and the envy of mankind, 
have fallen the devoted victims of Otterman Tyranny.” 2 

But whistle as much as they might, their courage was 
gone and their prestige had been affected. Their discom¬ 
fiture was still further augmented by letters which Monroe 
was sending home, severely criticising the Jacobin clubs 
of France. The societies did not immediately pass into 
obscurity. Indeed, new ones were formed here and there 
even after this episode. But henceforth they were less 
visible, less audible, less important. 

The significance of these societies for us, in this investi¬ 
gation, lies in the fact that they were hotly enthusiastic for 
the French Revolution, both in its aspect as a body of gen¬ 
eral principles, capable of general adoption, and as a con¬ 
crete attempt of a single country to alter and improve its 
national life. These societies approved all that was hap¬ 
pening in France. They furnished the medium through 
which multitudes looked at these strange and exciting 
phenomena. They shaped one kind of public opinion. 

Nor is it necessary for us to adopt the attitude of the Fed¬ 
eralists toward them. They were not composed of simply 
the restless and discontented and noisy elements of the 
population. Many eminent men belonged. In Philadel 
phia David Rittenhouse and Charles Biddle and James 
Hutchinson and Alexander James Dallas and Jonathan D. 
Sergeant and P. S. Duponceau, men of ability and high 
standing in the community, were members. James Sullivan, 


’'Independent Chronicle, Jan. 15, 1795. 


2 Ibid. Jan. 29, 1795. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


209 


later Governor, belonged to the Boston society. But there 
is reason to believe that many of these were swept in by 
the first gust of popular enthusiasm, and that as the more 
violent party got the upper hand they either withdrew or 
slipped into a corner. 1 

The Democratic clubs were thus a means of holding a 
large part of public opinion in favor of the French Revolu¬ 
tion, notwithstanding all its distressing horrors. They 
were also the means of intensifying in a high degree the 
opposition of its opponents. They were also the agents 
who introduced in this country many of the doctrines and 
many of the follies that were having so astonishing a vogue 
in France. 


LEVELLING PRINCIPLES. 

It was at this time that French levelling principles also 
came surging in upon American politics and social life. 
The National Gazette published, over the nom de plume 
Mirabeau, an article entitled “ Forerunners of Monarchy 
and Aristocracy in the United States,” which was widely 
quoted in other papers. These forerunners, as detected by 
the observing Mirabeau, were: 

1. The titles of Excellency, Honorable and Esquire, “all 
of which are of monarchical origin and are absurd in a 
republic.” 

2. Levees! 

3. Keeping the birthdays of the servants of the public. 
“ Mr. Paine says very justly that it is dangerous for a peo¬ 
ple to believe that any one man or set of men are necessary 

Charles Biddle says in his Autobiography (p. 254): “In July 
[1793] I went to Long Branch and lodged at Col. Green’s with a 
number of my Federal friends, who, upon my first arriving at the 
shore, congratulated me on my having the honor of being elected 
Vice-President of the Democratic Society; however, finding it was 
a subject I did not like, they soon dropped it.” 

Sullivan, finding reason to disapprove of the extreme views of 
the Boston Society, took occasion publicly to erase his name from 
their books. Amory, Life of Sullivan, I, 275. 




210 


The French Revolution. 


to the safety or happiness of a country, and keeping the 
birthdays of individuals has a tendency to create such an 
opinion.” 

4. Establishing a ceremonial distance between the offi¬ 
cers of the government and the people. “ It is to make 
the creature greater than the Creator. It is to repeat the 
folly and crime of idolatry.” 

5. Parade of every kind in the officers of government, 
such as “ pompous carriages, splendid feasts and tawdry 
gowns. These baubles are an insult to the understanding 
of a free people.” 

6. “ Looking up to the heads of the departments and 
praising or blaming them for the good or evil things which 
flow from the government.” 

7. High salaries to the officers of government. “ These 
are necessary in monarchical or aristocratical governments, 
where men must be bribed by dinners and presents to do 
their duty, but in a republic they are unnecessary.” . . . 
“ Above all, it is highly monarchical and aristocratical for 
the officers of government to spend their salaries only in 
feasting one another. It draws a dangerous line between the 
rulers and the ruled of a free country. It institutes at once 
a privileged order of men. An office creates no change in 
the mind or body of a man, and the moment he separates 
himself from his constituents by a fastidious distance he 
should be displaced.” 

8. Profligacy in the officers of government, “ whether it 
manifests itself in swearing, drunkenness, debauchery or a 
want of justice in the payment of debts. These are all royal 
and noble vices and should never be tolerated in the rulers 
of a republic.” 

9. “ An opinion that the care of the State should be the 
exclusive business of the officers of the government.” Me¬ 
chanics, parsons, and doctors have a perfect right to point 
out abuses in government. 

10. An irredeemable debt. 

“ It is to be hoped that the citizens of the United States 


Opinions of Americans at Home. 211 

will guard their infant republic from all the forerunners of 
monarchy which have been mentioned. . . . When the 
mind becomes familiar with the trappings of royalty and 
aristocracy, the transition to monarchy and tyranny is in¬ 
evitable.” 1 

Such was the warning of the penetrating “ Mirabeau.” 
“ Condorcet ” was of a similar mind, approved the diag¬ 
nosis of “ Mirabeau,” and probed even deeper. “ The 
assumption of the titles of office by the officers of govern¬ 
ment in social life.” Lo! is not there yet another “fore¬ 
runner,” asks he. It is a “ vain display of superiority ” and 
“ designates a little and frivolous mind ” and shows “ a dis¬ 
position for distinction and inequality.” . . . “ In the social 
communication between man and man the officers of gov¬ 
ernment are no more than citizens.” Another danger is the 
“ Secret Deliberation of the Senate.” “ The spirit of a 
Venetian Senate suits not as yet the meridian of the United 
States; neither does the conduct of a conclave or a divan 
comport with the feelings of Americans.” 2 

“ Sieyes ” has something to add in the next issue, and 
“ Cornelia ” writes commending the remarks of her prede¬ 
cessors: “They are but too just,” says she, “but they have 
not struck the evil at its root.” This she proceeds to do. 

It is well known what an influence women exert over 
men. All history is the proof thereof. That we direct the 
fashions is incontrovertible. Now there are fashions in 
opinions as well as dress. “ Am I not just in the inference 
that we form your political characters; that we can hold out 
liberty or slavery to you.” . . . “ Let us fashion men to 
virtue, but not to the servility and adulation of royalty.” 3 

This is one series out of the mass of silly, stupid, imbecile 
rant in which the papers of that day abound. But this is 
only the beginning of the story. Articles breathing forth 
French levelling principles in all their queer, grotesque 


1 National Gazette, Dec. 12, 1792. 

3 Ibid. Dec. 26, 1792. 


2 Ibid. Dec. 15, 1792. 



212 


The French Revolution. 


varieties followed thick and fast, crowding each other in the 
public prints. 

“ Diogenes ” “ does not beg leave, but demands the in¬ 
herent right of a free and independent citizen to write, and 
caused to be published ” in the American Daily Advertiser 
the following “impartial and republican” sentiments: 
“ When I attend the courts of justice the tympana of my 
ears are greeted with the lordly sounds contained in peti¬ 
tions, etc., of ‘ To the Worshipful Mayor,’ 1 His Honor the 
Judge,’ etc. When in the State Legislature, of ‘ His Ex¬ 
cellency the Governor,’ etc. When in the National Legis¬ 
lature, of ‘ His Excellency the President of the United 
States,’ ‘ The Honorable Member who spoke last,’ ” etc. 
“ These diabolical terms,” says Diogenes, “ whether in hum¬ 
ble imitation of royalty or the tottering remains of a dying 
aristocracy, are surely repugnant to the divine principles 
of a republican government. View the pride of nations, 
the great focus of human refinement, the central and glori¬ 
ous spot which gave the first genuine birth to the rights of 
man—I mean France. And let us, as I hope it is not yet 
too late, take from her a republican ^esson. There we 
find republicanism in the most elevated degree of pure and 
uncontaminated perfection. Instead of the ridiculous epi¬ 
thets of Sir, Mr., Esquire, Worshipful, Reverend, Right 
Reverend, Honorable, Excellency, etc., which are all con¬ 
trary to the principles of a republican government and de¬ 
spicable to every citizen who thinks for himself, we find the 
social and soul-warming term Citizen applied even to the 
first servant of the people in that sublime nation.” 1 Let us 
go and do likewise. The title Reverend is painful to other 
sensitive souls. “ To give the title Reverend to any man, be 
he who he may, is not only anti-republican but absolutely blas¬ 
phemous,” writes a correspondent to a Boston paper. 
“ Reverend only belongs to the Supreme Being, we read, 


1 Quoted from American Daily Advertiser in National Gazette, 
Dec. 26, 1792. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 213 

‘ holy and reverend is His name ’—no more of your rever¬ 
ends among poor, frail mortals.” 1 And another says: 
“ Neither the Patriarchs, Prophets, Evangelists or Apos¬ 
tles ever assumed this sacred title. We do not read of the 
Revs. Aaron, Jeremiah or Isaiah, or the reverend body of 
the Disciples.” 2 Another resents the use of the term with 
equal energy, though for a different reason. Did it not 
originate “ in papal Europe, where the clergy were little 
better than a kind of inquisitorial aides-de-camp to civil 
despotism?” 3 And the title “Esquire,” says Editor Fre¬ 
neau, is “ not tenable upon the fair ground of republican 
equality.” “ It encourages that worldly vanity so much 
reprobated by the Apostle.” Men tilted their lances even 
against the apparently inoffensive title “ Mr.” and with the 
approval of no less a man than Thomas Jefferson, who, on 
the occasion of the debate on presidential titles in the First 
Congress, had expressed the hope that the terms of Excel¬ 
lency, Honor, Worship, Esquire, would disappear forever 
from among us with the triumph of the Lower House in 
that controversy, and that that of Mr. would follow them, 4 
and they were urged to adopt as a substitute the “ social 
and soul-warming term Citizen.” This was to some ex¬ 
tent achieved during these hysterical months of 1793. Men 
addressed each other as Citizen So-and-so. They were so 
introduced at banquets and so described in the papers. The 
New York Democratic Society provided by its constitution 
that the term citizen should be prefixed to the designation 
of all its officers; that thus instead of the “aristocratic ad¬ 
dress ” of Mr. Chairman, the republican appellation, Citizen 
Chairman, should be used. This society gave a public din¬ 
ner on the 4th of July, and faithful to their freshly-imported 
principles, toasted the President of the United States as 
“ Citizen George Washington ” without any indication of 


1 Quoted from Boston Gazette in National Gazette, Jan. 16, 1793. 

2 Independent Chronicle, Oct. 31, 1793 - 

8 National Gazette, Feb. 27, 1793. 4 Jefferson’s Works, III, 89. 



214 


The French Revolution. 


his position in the country or any allusion to his public 
services. 1 

Men and women still married, but even here dominant 
Paris set the inode, as is shown in such announcements as 
these, which were quite frequent for a while in the columns 
of the newspapers: 

“ Married. 

“ By Citizen Thatcher, Citizen Frederick W. Geyer, Jr., 
to Citess Rebecca, daughter to Citizen Nathan Frazer.” 

“ On Thursday evening last, by Citizen Lathrop, Citizen 
Jonathan Wild, to Citess Mary, daughter to Citizen Samuel 
Ridgway.” 2 * To a paragraph announcing the marriage at 
Watertown of Mr. James Symes to Miss Sally Harback, 
the following couplet was appended: 

“ A virtuous lady he has got, 

And Citizen Elliot tied the knot.” * 

Of course such a queer, outlandish custom called forth 
infinite facetiousness from the Federalists. “ Cit and Citess 
is to come instead of Gaffer and Gammer, Goodey and 
Gooden, Mr. and Mrs., I suppose,” observes sarcastic John 
Adams. 4 * The Gazette of the United States remarks that 
“ while Liberty and Equality, Paine and the Rights of Man 
are all the rage to the Eastward,” it is pleasant to know 
that the brethren of the South are not far behind, that in 
addressing their sable fellow-creatures they say: “ Citizen 
Caesar, or Citizen Pompey, clean my boots,” and the auc¬ 
tioneer cries “ twenty pounds for Citizen Alexander—who 
bids more? ” 8 

Americans found a difficulty in the use of the term, which 
their French cousins escaped, in adapting it to the needs of 
women. Should the masculine be “ citizen ” and the fem¬ 
inine “citess”? Of should the latter be “civess”? Or 
why not not call the men “ cits ” and the women “ citi- 


1 Life and Writings of John Jay, by William Jay, I, 315-321. 

2 Boston Gazette, Jan. 21, 1793. 

5 Columbian Centinel, Feb. 2, 1793. 

4 Letters to Mrs. Adams, II, 123. 

6 Gazette of the United States, Feb. 2, 1793. 



Opinions of Americans at Horne. 


215 


zens ? Reviewing the controversy, some mocking Fed¬ 
eralist showed that even the title citizen wasn’t at all satis¬ 
factory. In Rome it was not understood to imply equality; 
there were nobles, patricians and plebeians, all of whom were 
citizens; further it could not be applied to even all republi¬ 
cans; for instance, recent immigrants. Some one had 
suggested the word brother as a better mode of address; 
but this was open to objections, for we should thereby lose 
a word useful for designating a dear relative. And it would 
also have to be admitted that that title could not well “ be 
applied to more than one-half of the species.” To the 
writer the term “ biped ” seemed more adequate and satis¬ 
factory. “This title is perfectly simple; it fits people of 
every country; it is male or female; it is not of aristocratic 
origin, and while it accords with truth, it cannot bear the 
suspicion of flattery.” 2 But despite all onslaughts of sar¬ 
casm this distinctly French invention enjoyed a consider¬ 
able popularity here. People who would adopt it would 
not be likely to be especially sensitive to ridicule. 

Another writer objected to the existence of the Phi Beta 
Kappa and other societies at Harvard. The present era, 
he says, seems to be one of general reformation in the po¬ 
litical world. There are certain reformations that may 
well be made in the literary republic. The “ P. B. K. is an 
infringement of the natural rights of society,” inimical to 
the “ principles of liberty and equality.” “ For three years 
classmates live in harmony. When lo! just as they have 
become ripe for friendship and have entered their last year, 
the demon of discord exerts her sway and lets loose the 
spirit of faction and party.” * * 


1 Columbian Centinel, March 16, 1793, contains the following: 

“ Citess. 

“No citess to my name I’ll have, says Kate, 

Tho’ Boston lads about it so much prate; 

I’ve asked its meaning and our Tom, the clown, 

Says, darn it, ’t means ‘ a Woman of the Town/ ” 

* Gazette of the United States, Feb. 6, 1793. 

* Columbian Centinel, May 15, 1793 - 


I 



216 


The French Revolution. 


These are but a few illustrations of that mass of weak, 
dull, inane fribbling which was served up to the patient 
readers of that day twice a week or oftener. How such a 
wretched, scrubby growth could have sprung up from 
American soil it is difficult to understand. Numberless 
examples might be given showing the same supersensitive, 
trivial, maudlin state of mind prevailing among a large 
section of the American public as prevailed in France and 
which was derived mainly from France. 

Evidences of royalty were attacked, whether in the form 
of public buildings or names of streets. A medallion, in¬ 
closing a bas-relief of George II surmounted by a crown, 
which had been permitted to remain on the eastern front of 
Christ Church, Philadelphia, was removed by the vestry in 
obedience to intimations published in Bache’s Advertiser to 
the effect that if they did not take it down themselves it 
might be done for them. The reason given was that to 
the certain knowledge of the Democratic Society “ it had 
a tendency to keep young and virtuous men from attending 
public worship.” 

Streets were rebaptized. A square in Boston which 
reminded of royalty was henceforth to be called Liberty 
Square. 1 An alley in the same town called Royal Ex¬ 
change Alley was rechristened with much formality and 
came out of the operation as Equality Lane. The corpora¬ 
tion of the city of New York changed the name of Queen 
Street to that of Pearl, Crown to that of Liberty. In vain 
did Noah Webster suggest satirically that if any name were 
to be changed “this vile aristocratical name New York” 
should be, so redolent with royalty. In vain did he ask 
what was to become of Kings County and Queens and 
Orange. “ Nay, what will become of the people named 
King? Alas for the liberties of such people!” It boots 
little to get rid of one or two royal names while others 


1 Boston Gazette, Jan. 28, 1793; Bache’s General Advertiser, Feb. 
h 1793. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


217 


remain to plague and taint the community. 1 To sarcasm 
the democrats were quite impervious. 

The Democratic clubs, whose activity we have noted in 
other matters, also played an important part in introducing 
French levelling principles in revolutionary vernacular. 
It was through them that the word “ democrat ” was ushered 
into our politics, a term regarded with abhorrence and 
loathing by the Federalists as most odious French spawn, 
disliked and repudiated even by Jefferson and the more 
moderate republicans as a bantling for which they did not 
wish to be held responsible. Through them, and through 
the opposition they aroused, other new terms came rushing 
into our political life, whose origin they themselves betray. 
Anarchists, aristocrats, mobocrats, monocrats, Jacobins, 
clubbists, Anglomen, Gallomen were soon flowing readily 
from the pens of the newspaper men, adding vigor, if not 
dignity, to our political discussion. We read of “ acts of 
incivism,” “ breaches of civism.” Mirabeau, Condorcet, 
Sieyes, Respublica, Ca ira, became popular as nonis de 
plume. The day of badges and buttons was foreshadowed 
in the coming of cockades—the tricolor direct from France, 
and the black, later adopted by the partisans of England. 2 . 

Thus not only did Americans express their approval of 
the French Revolution by eagerly adopting its modes of 
thought, its characteristic phrases, but by adopting its 
other modes of expression as well, its songs, its dances, its 
cockades, its clubs, its destruction of the reminders of roy¬ 
alty. Thus imitation, the sincerest form of flattery, shows 
how the admiration of a large section of the American peo¬ 
ple for everything French extended even into trivial details. 

John R. Watson, then a boy in Philadelphia, lived 


1 Minerva, April 19, 1794 - 

2 Wansey, who travelled in this country in the summer of 1794, 
wrote as follows: “ At least one out of ten that I met in the streets 
was a French person, wearing the tricolored cockade, the men with 
it in their hats, the women on their breasts.” Henry Wansey. An 
Excursion to the United States of North America in the Summer 

of 1794 , P- 175 . 



218 


The French Revolution. 


through all this and has left us the valuable evidence of a 
contemporary in a graphic passage in his Annals of Phila¬ 
delphia in the Olden Time. 1 The mania was so high that 
it had caught the children. “ I remember,” he says, “ with 
what joy we ran to the wharves at the report of the cannon 
to see the arrivals of French prizes; we were so pleased to 
see the British Union down! When we met French offi¬ 
cers or marines in the streets we would cry Vive la repub- 
lique! Although most of us understood no French, we 
had caught many national airs, and the streets by day and 
night resounded with the songs of boys such as these: 
‘ Allons, enfans de la patrie, le jour de gloire est arrive ’ 
and * Dansons le carmagnole, vive le sang, vive le sang ’ and 
‘ Ca ira, Ca ira.’ Several verses of each of these and others 
were thus sung. All of us put on the national cockade. . . . 
I remember several boyish processions, and on one occasion 
girls dressed in white, and in French tricolored ribbons, 
formed a procession, too. There was a great Liberty pole 
^ with a red cap at the top erected” near the French minis¬ 
ter’s house in what is now Girard Square, “ and there I and a 
hundred others taking hold of hands and forming a ring 
round the same, made triumphant leapings, singing the 
national airs [of France]. ... I remember that among 
the grave and elderly men who gave the impulse and 
prompted the revellings was a burly, gouty old gentleman, 
Blair McClenahan (famed in the democratic ranks of that 
day), and with him and the white misses at our head we 
marched down the middle of the dusty street, and when 
arrived opposite to Mr. Hammond’s [the English Min¬ 
ister] there were several signs of disrespect manifested to 
his house. All the facts of that day, as I now contemplate 
them, as among the earliest impressions of my youth, seem 
something like the remembrance of a splendid dream. I 
hope never to see such an enthusiasm for any foreigners 
again, however merited. It was a time when, as it now 


1 1, 180. 




Opinions of Americans at Home. 219 

seems to me, Philadelphia boys had usurped the attributes 
of manhood; and men who should have chastened us had 
themselves become very puerile.” * 1 

CONTEMPORARY LITERATURE AS AN 

EVIDENCE. 

We may still further discover the intensity of this interest 
in the Revolution by an examination of what must pass as 
the American literature of the period, both prose and 
poetry. No doubt, judged by any sound canons, much of 
the prose of that day must be relegated to the windy limbo 
of bombast, and much of the poetry must be dubbed as 


1 Nor did the desire for change and imitation stop here appar¬ 
ently. Samuel Breck says in his Recollections that “ a gang of 
atheists opened a temple in Philadelphia in 1796 or ’97, which they 
dedicated to Reason, so that, throwing off entirely the Chris¬ 
tian creed, they took Tom Paine and Robespierre’s Goddess of 
Reason and such like for their idol. This effort was associated 
with a licentious newspaper called ‘ The Temple of Reason.’ I 
am happy to say that public opinion soon after put the whole 
down.” Recollections of Samuel Breck, ed. by H. E. Scudder, 118. 

I have been unable to ascertain the exact value of this passage. 
The looseness of statement, the confusion of conception, as shown 
in connecting Robespierre with the worship of the Goddess of 
Reason, seem to mark it as one of those evidences of reli¬ 
gious bigotry which the Federalists showed in such consummate 
perfection, especially when the French Revolution could be brought 
into the argument. It may, on the other hand, reveal a direct 
and conscious imitation on the part of some of the Democrats of 
the religious thought and attitude of the revolutionists. 

That the disposition to change things, even the most fundamental 
and most impregnable, was fostered by the Revolution, is shown 
not only in the ways mentioned in the text, but also by the curious 
attempt of a Philadelphia scholar to alter the language—that it 
might no longer be English, but “ American.” The author states 
in his preface that as the present era seems to be one of great 
changes and improvements, and refers to France as illustration, 
we might well perfect that most important instrument—language— 
which in this case he proposes to do by inventing a few new char¬ 
acters, inverting some of the old and adopting altered modes of 
spelling. William Thornton. Cadmus, or a treatise on the ele¬ 
ments of written language. Philadelphia, 1793 - There is a copy of 
this curious thesis in the Congressional Library in Washington. 



220 


The French Revolution. 


simply poor prose decked out in the rags of doggerel, but 
however grievous their sins of form might be, still they 
served the men of that time as literature, and expressed 
the thoughts that were in the air in a manner that was gen¬ 
erally acceptable. The French Revolution, with its stirring 
ideas and its striking episodes, naturally enough called forth 
a literature all its own in this country as in others. As 
it evoked a controversial literature in England, of which 
prominent examples are Burke’s Reflections and Mackin¬ 
tosh’s Vindiciae Gallicae and Paine’s Rights of Man, so here 
it impelled the Adamses to write their Discourses on Da¬ 
vila and Essays of Publicola, while Noah Webster reviewed 
the Revolution in a widely read pamphlet, and Joel Barlow 
helped in the shaping of events by his various writings. 
As there it fired the eloquent Doctor Price and other liberal 
clergymen, so here it was at first glorified in numberless 
fervid sermons and later denounced in numberless others. 
As there it caught the enthusiasm and inflamed the fancy 
of Wordsworth and Coleridge, so here it thrilled and fas¬ 
cinated and repelled, flowering forth in much metrical, if 
not poetical, effort. As France invaded our politics she 
also invaded our literature. Poems began to appear in 
abundance, whose titles are significant. “ On seeing a 
Print exhibiting the Ruins of the Bastille,” 1 “ July the 
Fourteenth,” 2 3 Man shall be Free,” “ The Decree of the 
Sun, or France Regenerated,” 8 “ Sonnet to General Lafay¬ 
ette,” “ Lines to Thomas Paine,” “ Lines on the Death of 
Louis XVI,” “ The American’s Prayer for France,” “ Ode 
to Liberty,” “ Ode to Equality,” “ The Progress of Free¬ 
dom,” 4 * “ Fayette in Prison, or Misfortunes of the Great— 


1 Posthumous Works of Ann Eliza Bleecker, N. Y., 1793, pp. 
329 - 332 , 353 - 355 - 

2 Michael Forrest, “ Travels through America.” A poem. Phila¬ 
delphia, 1793, p. 50. 

3 The Decree of the Sun; or, France Regenerated. A poem in 
three cantos. The first offering of a youthful muse. Boston, 8vo, 
pp. 21. 

4 The Poetical and Miscellaneous Works of James Elliott, Green¬ 

field, 1798. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


221 


a Modern Tragedy,” 1 “ The Conspiracy of Kings,” by Joel 
Barlow, “ Ode on the Death of Charlotte Corday,” “ Guil- 
lotina, or the Annual Song of the Tenth Muse,” 2 “ Aris¬ 
tocracy, an Epic Poem,” 3 the “ Jacobiniad,” 4 “Epitaph for 
Robespierre whenever he dies,” 5 “ The Lament of Wash¬ 
ington ” [on Lafayette’s imprisonment]. 6 

Americans appreciated the fact that they were living in 
an astonishing year. This is shown in an ode on Mount 
Vernon by Col. David Humphreys, 7 and by another poet 
of the time of some little note, Josias Lyndon Arnold, who 
wrote humorously under the title 

Thanksgiving, Nov. 26, 1789. 

“ In future times, when wonder-mongers pry, 

And search old records with a curious eye, 

They’ll stand amaz'd, that in a single year 
So many wonders on the page appear. 

That—men of feeling, tyrant custom brav’d, 

And gave relief to Africans enslav’d; 

Taught the white world that men of sable skin 
Had souls as white and pure as their’s within. 

That Frenchmen burst thro’ slav’ry’s iron cage, 

And rose to greatness on the human stage; . 

That first Columbia saw the glorious hour 
That rais’d her credit, as she rose in power; 

And when—miraculous event indeed! 

A Day of Thanks Rhode Island State decreed.” 8 

Poets, commemorating the 4th of July or other patriotic 
days, almost invariably turned their eyes to France before 
bringing their lays to a close. A poem addressed to the 
members of the Cincinnati of New York on the 4th of July, 
1793, is a tyP e these. 

“ Bend your eyes toward that shore 
Where Bellona’s thunders roar; 

There your Gallic brethren see 
Struggling, bleeding to be free. 

Oh! unite your prayers that they 
May soon announce their natal day.” 9 


1 By “ A Gentleman of Massachusetts,” Worcester, 1802, pp. 40. 

2 Lemuel Hopkins, Connecticut Courant, Jan. 1, 1796. Echo, p. 

220. 3 Philadelphia, 1795, 8vo, pp. 16. 

4 Federal Orrery, Dec. 1794 and Jan. 1795. 

5 Ibid. Nov. 24, 1794. 6 Wm. Bradford. 

7 American Poems, Litchfield, 1793, pp. 123-125. 

8 Josias Lyndon Arnold. Poems. Providence, 1792, p. 107. 

9 Posthumous Works of Ann Eliza Bleecker, pp. 351-353. 



222 


The French Revolution. 


As a rule most of the fugitive stanzas of that day com¬ 
memorating the various events of the Revolution were 
serious affairs indeed, most seriously intended, but now and 
then some mocker, upon whom the stress of events sat 
lightly, to whom the great movement seemed rather like 
roaring melodrama dashed with strong elements of comedy, 
would relieve the monotony by jesting. Such strains were 
rare, but they fall most welcome upon the ear that is tired 
of the din of extravagant enthusiasm or narrow and bitter 
denunciation. * 1 

There might be a few who would mock and jeer, but there 
were more who were all aglow with enthusiasm as they 
beheld the Revolution, and whose pens rushed to extol, 
denouncing all who opposed or ridiculed or stood indif¬ 
ferent. Conspicuous among these were Hugh Henry 
Brackenridge, Philip Freneau and Joel Barlow. Brack- 
enridge, a graduate of Princeton in the same class with 
Freneau and Madison, drifted into the Alleganies and be¬ 
came prominent in the Whiskey Insurrection. His political 
aspirations and attachments were strongly democratic. He 
was a very popular orator and was enamored of the French 
Revolution. 2 His expansive enthusiasm and rapturous 
rhetoric made him very tempting game for the sarcastic 
and derisive Federalists. 

Freneau, of far greater literary gift, was descended from 
an old Huguenot family which had been driven from France 
by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. He became a 


1 See J. L. Arnold, Poems, 1792, 70-76. Also Royal Tyler’s 
Convivial Song for the 4th of July, 1799, at Windsor, Vt., in Hem- 
enway’s Poets and Poetry of Vermont, p. 7. 

1 His son, H. M. Brackenridge, says of him: He was “an en¬ 
thusiast in the cause of France, and, from his high temperament, 
incapable of pursuing anything in moderation. . . . He wrote with 
the pungency and force of a Junius, and spoke with the inspired elo¬ 
quence of a Henry; it is therefore not to be wondered at that he 
became a formidable politician. He purchased types and press, 
and set up a young man as editor of a paper, which he previously 
named the ‘ Tree of Liberty,’ with a motto from Scripture— 

‘ And the leaves of the tree shall be for the healing of the nation.’ ” 
Recollections of the West, p. 82. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


223 


journalist, and, supported by Jefferson, published a paper 
that was a stench in the nostrils of the Federalists, so radi¬ 
cal and so vituperative was it. The files of this paper, the 
National Gazette, present a vivid picture of the blind and 
turbulent enthusiasm of masses of Americans for things 
French. In it Freneau caused the publication, in 1793, of 
a series of “ Probationary Odes by Jonathan Pindar, Esq., 
a cousin of Peter’s and candidate for the post of Poet-Lau¬ 
reate.” These odes, probably written by Freneau himself, 
were chiefly lampoons on the principal members of the 
Government—Adams, Knox and Hamilton. 1 The first 
was addressed “ To all the Great Folks in a Lump,” the 
second “To Atlas,” meaning Hamilton, the third “To a 
Select Body of Great Men,” meaning the Senate, the fourth 
“ To a Would Be Great Man,” Adams. 

“ Daddy Vice, Daddy Vice, 

One may see in a trice 
The drift of your fine publication; 

As sure as a gun 
The thing was just done 
To secure you a pretty high station. 

When you tell us of kings 
And such pretty things 
Good mercy! how brilliant your page is! 

So bright is each line 
I vow you’ll shine 

Like—a glow worm to all future ages. 

On Davila’s page, 

Your discourses so sage, 

Democratical numskulls bepuzzle 
With arguments tough 
As white leather or buff, 

The republican Bull Dogs to muzzle. 

’Tis labor in vain, 

Your senses to strain, 

Our brains any longer to muddle; 

Like Colossus you stride 
O’er our noddles so wide 
We look up like frogs in a puddle.” 2 


1 They began to appear about the first of June and ran for twelve 
or fifteen numbers. 

2 Duyckinck, Cyclopaedia of American Literature, I, 330. 



224 


The French Revolution . 


This “ ode ” is typical of the others. They all grew out 
of the ferment occasioned in our politics just at this time by 
the intrusion of the French Revolution. 

The resistless influence of that movement is shown much 
more strikingly in the case of another American, Joel Bar- 
low. Barlow, a classmate of Noah Webster at Yale, 
played a peculiar part in the history of this period. He 
was one of those cosmopolitan patriots of whom Paine 
and Clootz were other examples, representatives of man¬ 
kind in general, eager to spring to the demolition of abuses, 
no matter whom those abuses really concerned. Barlow 
was Connecticut born and one of the little literary circle 
there which was, withal, quite a credit to the times. In 1788 
he went to Europe as the representative of a business ven¬ 
ture and did not return for fifteen years. It is interesting 
to see this Connecticut Yankee, whose natural tendencies 
and affiliations were all conservative in this country, be¬ 
come the French visionary, completely saturated with the 
optimistic theories prevailing there. Throwing himself 
impetuously and confidently into the great convulsions of 
the time, he soon won for himself a great reputation as a 
political pamphleteer. Living now in London, now in 
Paris, and finding his associates among those who were 
clamoring for change, he soon became an ultra radical. 
The next few years were marked by great literary activity 
on his part. Plunging into the conflict raging about him, 
he added his share to it by poems, pamphlets and addresses, 
denouncing the most essential and characteristic features 
of the existing regime. He was a member of the Consti¬ 
tutional Society of London and was recognized throughout 
Europe as one of the leading exponents of the republican 
idea. 1 Among other things, he wrote “ The Conspiracy of 
Kings,” a political satire in poetical form; “Advice to the 
Privileged Orders in the Several States of Europe, resulting 
from the Necessity and Propriety of a General Revolution 


x Todd, Life of Joel Barlow. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


225 


in the Principle of Government/’ the most extensive and 
probably the best of his prose writings; “A Letter to the 
National Convention of France, on the Defects in the Con¬ 
stitution of 1791, and the Extent of the Amendments which 
ought to be Applied,” and lastly, “ A Letter to the People 
of Piedmont on the advantages of the French Revolution 
and the Necessity of Adopting its principles in Italy.” 

“ The Conspiracy of Kings, A poem addressed to the 
Inhabitants of Europe from another quarter of the World,” 
was a very bitter attack upon the sovereigns of England, 
Holland, Naples, Sweden and the German States, who had 
just formed a coalition against France. “ The poem is of 
the kind called satire; attempts to catch the tone of Juvenal; 
aims to be very exasperating, even appalling; somehow 
succeeds in being only abusive; emits mere howls of metri¬ 
cal vituperation,” says a recent critic. 1 

Appealing to Eternal Truth and bidding, 

“ People and priests and courts and kings attend,” 

And listen to “ the untainted voice that no dissuasion awes; 
That fears no frown and seeks no blind applause,” 

Which is “ borne on western gales from that far shore, 

Where justice reigns and tyrants tread no more ”— 

He launches forth this fearful bolt: 

“ Think not, ye knaves, whom meanness styles the Great— 
Drones of the Church and harpies of the State— 

Ye, whose curst sires, for blood and plunder fam’d, 

Sultans or kings or czars, or emp’rors nam’d, 

Taught the deluded world their claims to own, 

And raised the crested reptiles to a throne.— 

Ye, who pretend to your dark host was given 
The lamp of life, the mystic keys of heaven; 

Whose impious arts, with magic spells began, 

When shades of ign’rance veil’d the race of man. 

Think not I come to croak with omen’d yell 
The dire damnations of your future hell. 

I know your crusted souls! 

Oh, Burke, degenerate slave, with grief and shame 
The Muse indignant must repeat thy name. 

Strange man, declare, since at creation's birth, 

From crumbling chaos sprang this heaven and earth; 


1 Moses Coit Tyler. Three Men of Letters, 171. 



226 


The French Revolution . 


Since wrecks and outcast relics still remain, 

Whirl’d ceaseless round confusion’s dreary reign, 

Declare, from all these fragments, whence you stole 
That genius wild, that monstrous mass of soul? 

And didst thou hope, by thy infuriate quill, 

To rouse mankind the blood of realms to spill? 

Then to restore, on death devoted plains, 

Their scourge to tyrants, and to man his chains? 

To swell their souls with thy own bigot rage 
And blot the glories of so bright an age? 

'Tis Rank, Distinction, all the hell that springs 
From those prolific monsters, Courts and Kings; 

These are the vampires nurs’d on nature's spoils. 

Of these no more. From Orders, Slaves and Kings 
To thee, O Man, my heart rebounding springs; 

Behold th’ ascending bliss that waits your call— 

Heaven’s own bequest, the heritage of all. 

Freedom at last, with reason in her train 
Extends o’er earth her everlasting reign. 

See Gallia’s sons, so late the tyrant’s sport, 

Machines in war and sycophants at court, 

Start into men, expand their well-taught mind, 

Lords of themselves and leaders of mankind.” 1 

“ The Conspiracy of Kings ” was very popular with the 
liberals in England. It was brief enough to be caught up 
by the newspapers and was quickly spread throughout the 
realm, capturing the favor of the Whigs and the bitter 
hatred of the Tories. 

A more important work, however, was his “ Advice to 
the Privileged Orders,” a volume of political essays, attack¬ 
ing the feudal system, arraigning abuses in Church and 
State. Chapters on the Feudal System, the Church, the 
Military, the Administration of Justice, the System of Rev¬ 
enue and Public Expenditure, the Means of Subsistence, 
Literature and Science and Art, War and Peace, make up 
the volume. 2 It attacked primogeniture, ridiculed many of 


1 The Political Writings of Joel Barlow, N. Y., 1796, pp. 237-258. 

2 Published in two parts. The first part appeared in London in 

1792. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


227 


the absurdities and anomalies and intricacies of English 
law, condemned capital punishment, and denounced lot¬ 
teries and tontines, then so popular. “ It is safe to say,” 
writes Mr. Todd, “ that no political work of the day created 
so wide an interest or was so extensively read.” 1 Fox 
eulogized it formally in the House of Commons. The 
British Government commanded its suppression, proscribed 
its author and then seized upon his private papers as those 
of a suspicious person. Barlow fled in hiding from the 
British officials. “ Mr. Burke often makes honorable men¬ 
tion of you in Parliament,” wrote Mrs. Barlow. “ Some¬ 
times he calls you a prophet—the prophet Joel.” 2 3 Mr. 
Jefferson wrote the author acknowledging a copy of the 
work, “ Be assured that your endeavors to bring the trans- 
Atlantic world into the road of reason, are not without 
their effect here. Some here are disposed to move retro¬ 
grade, and to take their stand in the rear of Europe, now 
advancing to the high ground of natural right; but of all 
this your friend Mr. Baldwin gives you information, and 
doubtless paints to you the indignation with which the 
heresies of some people here fill us.” 8 

In some ways the most interesting and instructive of 
these products of Barlow’s pen is his “ Letter to the Na¬ 
tional Convention of France, on the defects of the Consti¬ 
tution of 1791, and the extent of the amendments which 
ought to be applied.” 4 * This letter, dated London, Septem¬ 
ber 16, 1792, is an expose of the vices of the constitution 
that had been framed after so much exertion by the 
National Assembly. It has the true Revolutionary ring. 
The optimism, the audacity, the phraseology are racy of the 
soil from which they sprang. Tradition sits but lightly 
upon this young reformer from beyond the seas; innova ¬ 
tion, wide-spread and fundamental, has no terrors for hi m. 


1 Todd, Life of Barlow, 89. 2 Ibid. 89. 

3 Jefferson’s Works, III, 45 B June 20, 1792. 

4 Contained in The Political Writings of Joel Barlow, 1796, 160 

seq. 



228 


The French Revolution. 


The loth of August has occurred. Plainly something will 
soon happen in France. Barlow, observing, makes sugges¬ 
tions. Far is it from his thoughts to account for the extra¬ 
ordinary step he is taking in addressing the Legislature of 
a foreign state—he a private citizen of a country not at all 
concerned. “ My intentions require no apology,” he says 
in the opening of his letter, “ I demand to be heard as a 
right. Your cause is that of human nature at large; you 
are the representatives of mankind; and though I am not 
literally one of your constituents, yet I must be bound by 
your decrees. My happiness will be seriously affected by 
your deliberations; and in them I have an interest which 
nothing can destroy. I not only consider all mankind as 
forming but one great family, and therefore bound by a 
natural sympathy to regard each other’s happiness as mak¬ 
ing part of their own; but I contemplate the French nation 
at this moment as standing in the place of the whole. You 
have stepped forward with a gigantic stride to an enterprize 
which involves the interest of every surrounding nation; 
and what you began as justice to yourselves, you are called 
upon to finish as a duty to the human race.” The solution 
found by the Constituent Assembly for the woes of France, 
Barlow holds in light esteem. Indeed monarchy, absolute 
or limited, is no solution at all but simply the postpone¬ 
ment of it. He considers it remarkable that that Assembly, 
beginning “ with the open simplicity of a rational republic,” 
should immediately have plunged “ into all the labyrinths 
of royalty,” that so great a part of the Constitution should 
be an attempt to “ reconcile these two discordant theories,” 
remarkable that the King’s flight should have had “ so little 
effect in opening the eyes of so enlightened a people as the 
French.” At no period of the Revolution have the affairs 
of state gone on more smoothly or more effectively than 
during the suspension of the King’s powers from the time 
of his return to the final adoption of the constitution in 
September. The experiment that France has made during 
the last year with limited monarchy has been of value only 


Opinions of Americans at Home. 229 

in that it has taught convincingly a new doctrine “ that 
kings can do no good.” Barlow supposes that France is 
done with monarchy, that she will soon formally abolish it. 
Her own history is eloquent enough with the evils of kingly 
government—its cost, the weakness or the wickedness of 
the monarchs (which is the ordinary rule). Barlow rejects 
peremptorily the idea, sometimes brought forward, that 
certain peoples may not be fit for liberty. In regard to 
this every people is its own best judge. He even says that 
government by a line of kings, even supposing them always 
good and able, would not be the best government. “ If 
the Algerines or the Hindoos were to shake off the yoke of 
despotism, and adopt ideas of equal liberty, they would 
that moment be in a condition to frame a better government 
for themselves, than could be framed for them by the most 
learned statesmen in the world.” Instance “ the great Mr. 
Locke ” and South Carolina. It is therefore to be supposed 
that monarchy is already condemned in France. But there 
are many vices in the constitution, not apparently con¬ 
nected with the King, yet which have their origin in regal 
ideas. It is necessary “ to purify the whole code of these 
vices and to purge human nature from their effects.” 

Barlow would suggest, therefore, that, in re-opening the 
question so badly answered by the Constituent Assembly, 
and in the more perfect reconstruction now about to be 
made, “ the undisguised reason in all things ” should be 
“ preferred to the cloak of imposition.” 

Should this be done the National Church would no longer 
be maintained. Those err who advocate the payment of 
the Catholic clergy from the national purse on the ground 
that property, formerly supposed to belong to the 
Church, has been declared by the Constituent Assembly to 
belong to the nation, and that some equivalent is due 
from the nation in return. The Church signifies nothing 
“but a mode of worship; and to prove that a mode can 
be the proprietor of lands requires a subtility of logic that 
I shall not attempt to refute.” The Church as an hierarchy 


230 The French Revolution. 

* 

is but a prop to monarchy and they should both be buried 
“ in the same grave.” Religion will not thereby suffer. 
Religion is “ a natural propensity of the mind, as respira¬ 
tion of the lungs.” “ If this be true there can be no dan¬ 
ger of its being lost; and I can see no more reason for 
making laws to regulate the impression of the Deity upon 
the soul, than there would be to regulate the action of light 
upon the eye.” 

In regard to constitutional laws and ordinary laws there 
is, indeed, a difference. But we should not attach a sacred¬ 
ness to the former that will stand in the way of progress. 
It was an act of arrogance on the part of the Constituent 
Assembly to suppose that they had framed a constitution 
that would require no amending for a number of years. 
Our predecessors cannot frame a better government for us 
than we for ourselves. That would suppose them “ to have 
known our condition by prophecy better than we know it 
by experience.” It was ridiculous for the Constituent 
Assembly to suppose that by throwing artificial and arbi¬ 
trary barriers about the constitution, they could “ prevent 
the people from exercising the irresistible right of innova¬ 
tion.” There should, of course, be a gulf between con¬ 
stitutional and ordinary laws, but the gulf shouldn’t be so 
very deep or impassable. The way of amending the con¬ 
stitution should be made easy and expeditious. Barlow 
would propose that every annual national assembly should 
have power to propose , and the next succeeding one to 
adopt and ratify any amendments it might think proper. 
“ But it should always be done under this restriction, that 
the articles to be proposed by any one assembly should be 
agreed to and published to the people in every department 
within the first six months of the session of that assembly.” 
The people would therefore have time to reflect. 

Barlow recommends that population be made the only 
basis of representation; to make territory or property a 
qualification, as did the Constituent Assembly, is absurd. 
Every independent man should be declared an active citi- 


Opinions of Americans at Home. 231 

zen. The period of majority should be placed as early as 
twenty years. “ Every individual ought to be rendered as 
independent of every other individual as possible; and 
at the same time as dependent as possible on the whole 
community.” Now “ of all individuals those who are 
selected to be the organs of the people, in making and 
executing the laws, should feel this dependence in the 
strongest degree.” Frequency of elections is therefore de¬ 
sirable. Barlow advocates that they be held an'nually. “ I 
know of no office, in any department of state, that need be 
held for more than one year, without a new election. 
Most men who give in to this idea with respect to the 
legislature, are accustomed to make an exception with re¬ 
gard to the executive and particularly with regard to that 
part which is called the judiciary. I am aware of all the 
arguments that are usually brought in support of these ex¬ 
ceptions; but they appear to me of little weight, in compari¬ 
son to those in favor of universal annual elections. Power 
always was, and always must be a dangerous thing.” The 
people therefore should keep that which they must neces¬ 
sarily delegate well in hand. Barlow also recommends 
the periodical exclusion of legislators, executives, judges, 
and magistrates of every description from the offices they 
have been holding, that they may the more feel their 
dependence upon the people, and that thus thousands of 
men versed in public affairs may from time to time be 
sent into the departments, serving as a leaven, furnishing 
a stimulus to political ambition, teaching the art of govern¬ 
ment—an art, then, that every one will soon acquire. 
“ Every man of ordinary ability would be not only capa¬ 
ble of watching over his own rights, but of exercising any 
of the functions by which the public safety is secured. For 
whatever there is in the art of government, whether legis¬ 
lative or executive, above the capacities of the ordinary 
class of what are called well-informed men, is superfluous 
and destructive and ought to be laid aside.” 

There should be no difference between governors and 


232 


The French Revolution. 


governed. Salaries should, for this reason, be small. 
Public officers should not indulge in pomp. This is un¬ 
republican, an insult to the understanding. As to the rela¬ 
tion of the representative to his constituents, there are those 

who hold that once chosen he is no longer to be considered 

* 

as representing the people of the particular department 
sending him, but of the country as a whole, and that there¬ 
fore during his term he is not accountable to his constitu¬ 
ents. Barlow urges, however, that if the constituents should 
become dissatisfied at any time with the conduct of their 
representative, they should have the right to recall him and 
elect another in his place. “ This will tend to maintain a 
proper relation,” he says, “ between the representative and 
the people, and a due dependence of the former upon the 
latter. Besides, when a man has lost the confidence of his 
fellow citizens of the department, he is no longer their rep¬ 
resentative; and when he ceases to be their’s, he cannot in 
any sense be the representative of the nation; since it is not 
pretended that he can derive any authority, but through 
his own constituents.” 

Barlow then denounces imprisonment for debt. He ad¬ 
vises the Assembly to take up the whole question of punish¬ 
ments for crime and make what alterations and revisions 
commend themselves. “ In the glooms of meditation on 
the miseries of civilized life, I have been almost led to adopt 
this conclusion, that society itself is the cause of all crimes; 
and as such it has no right to punish them at all. But, 
without indulging the severity of this unqualified assertion, 
we may venture to say that every punishment is a new 
crime; though it may not in all cases be so great as would 
follow from omitting to punish.” It is to be hoped, at any 
rate, that punishment by death will be abolished. 

Barlow urges that more attention be given to public in¬ 
struction in the laws. It is but half the duty of the legisla¬ 
tor to make good laws. He must also see to it “ that every 
person in the state shall perfectly understand them. The 
barbarous maxim of jurisprudence That ignorance of the 


Opinions of Americans at Home. 


233 


law is no excuse to the offender , is an insolent apology for 
tyranny, and ought never to disgrace the policy of a 
rational government. I think therefore it would do honor 
to your constitution and serve as a stimulus to your legisla¬ 
tors and to your magistrates, in the great duty of instruc¬ 
tion, to declare That knowledge is the foundation of obedience, 
and that laws shall have no authority but where they are under¬ 
stood 

Barlow denounces State Lotteries and hopes that France 
will cease to have any. He also denounces the possession 
of colonies and hopes France will also cease to have them. 
“ As yours is the first nation in the world, that has solemnly 
renounced the horrid business of conquest, you ought to 
proceed one step further and declare that you will have no 
more to do with colonies. This is but a necessary conse¬ 
quence of your former renunciation. For colonies are an 
appendage of conquest; and to claim a right to the one 
would be claiming a perpetual or reiterated right to the 
other.” France should set the example to the world of de¬ 
claring her colonies absolutely free and independent states, 
and of inviting them to form governments of their own. 

Barlow also advises against the maintenance of a standing 
army—which the Constituent Assembly had seemed unwill¬ 
ing to abolish. “ A standing military force is the worst 
resource that can be found for the defense of a free republic. 
In this case the strength of the army is the weakness of 
the nation.” 

Such were Barlow’s suggestions to the French at that 
critical moment, such was his conception of their situation 
a week before the republic was declared. In closing he 
said: “If I have said anything from which a useful reflec¬ 
tion shall be drawn, I shall feel myself happy in having 
rendered some service to the most glorious cause that ever 
engaged the attention of mankind.” 

Thomas Paine praised this letter in the Convention, 
November 7, 1792. On the 27th of the same month Bar- 
low himself appeared before the bar of the Assembly to 


234 


The French Revolution. 


deliver the congratulations of the Constitutional Society of 
London, and was greeted with tremendous applause; and 
in February of the following year he was made a citizen 
of France, an honor conferred upon only two of his com¬ 
patriots, Washington and Ffamilton. 

This letter is its own best commentary. That a man 
trained in the sturdy but unromantic democracy of Con¬ 
necticut, and tempered by a long and painful war, which 
arose out of a nice sense of constitutional right and a strong 
respect for the authority of tradition and historic usage, 
should have become an ardent romanticist in politics, ven¬ 
turesome to a degree, ready to sacrifice the strong though 
imperfect achievements of time for the sake of greater ideal 
perfection in a sphere where his own experience might 
have shown him that idealism could only slowly enter at 
best, is a striking witness to that strength of appeal, that 
power of fascination which the forces that we call the Revo¬ 
lution had in so rare a degree for ardent, aspiring, gener¬ 
ous-minded men. The Revolution owes many of its dark¬ 
est passages to the fairest qualities of human nature, a fact, 
however, which unfortunately does not decrease their 
darkness . 1 


1 Barlow also wrote and had published in 1792 “ The Confed¬ 
eracy of Kings against the Freedom of the World, being Free 
Thoughts upon the present State of French Politics; a Vindication 
of the National Assembly in suspending Louis XVI; Conjectures 
on the Movements of the Confederate Armies; and their Influence 
in reinstating the King and establishing a constitution by force.” 
In “ Three Letters addressed to the Right Hon. Edmund Burke,” 
he attempted to hold Burke up to the “ execration of posterity.” 

Even the excesses of later years occasioned little diminution of 
Barlow’s admiration for the Revolution. In a letter written 
in 1798, he says: “Whoever will give himself the trouble of ob¬ 
taining a competent knowledge of the French Revolution, so as to 
be able to judge it with intelligence and weigh the infinite com¬ 
plication of difficulties and incentives to ungovernable passions 
that have lain in the way of its leaders, must indeed be shocked 
at their follies and their faults; but he will find more occasion to 
ask why they have committed so few, than why they have com¬ 
mitted so many.” Todd, 168. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


235 


But the eulogists of the Revolution soon ran foul of those 
who opposed and criticised, and whose pens were as slash¬ 
ing as their own. Among those who hewed and hacked 
away at those whom they were pleased to call our Jacobins, 
were Robert Treat Paine and the so-called Hartford Wits. 
The former enjoyed quite an unusual reputation for talent 
and brilliancy from the time of his college days. Eagerly 
did he satirize the Jacobins in various poems delivered at 
Harvard Commencements or published in the Federal Or¬ 
rery. His first poem mentioning the Revolution, however, 
was laudatory. This was delivered in July, 1792, when he 
took his A. B. degree. Being assigned an English poem 
he chose for his theme “ The Nature and Progress of Lib¬ 
erty,” than which none could have been more popular. 
He opened with an apostroplie to the subject of his thought: 

“ Hail, sacred Liberty, divinely fair! 

Columbia’s great palladium, Gallia’s prayer! 

From heaven descend to free this fettered globe; 

Unclasp the helmet and adorn the robe. 

May struggling France her ancient freedom gain; 

May Europe’s sword oppose her rights in vain.” 

Then he gave a lunge at Burke: 

“ Where’er the sunbeam gilds the rolling hour, 

Wings the fleet gale, and blossoms in the flower; 

May Freedom’s glorious reign o’er realms prevail, 

Where Cook’s bright fancy never spread the sail. 

Long may the laurel to the ermine yield, 

The stately palace to the fertile field; 

The fame of Burke in dark oblivion rust, 

His pen a meteor—and his page the dust.” 1 

But three years later when he was taking his Master’s 
degree and was assigned the delivery of a poem he lashed 
the Jacobins by showing their ignoble origin: 


1 The Works in Verse and Prose of the late Robert Treat Paine, 
Jun., Esq., with Notes. Preceded by a Biographical Sketch by 
Charles Prentiss. Boston. 1812. 



236 


The French Revolution. 


“ Envy, that fiend who haunts the great and good, 

Not Cato shunned, nor Hercules subdued. 

On Fame’s wide field, where’er a covert lies, 

The rustling serpent to the thicket flies; 

The foe of Glory, Merit is her prey, 

The dunce she leaves, to plod his drowsy way. 

Of birth amphibious, and of Protean skill, 

This green-eyed monster changes shape at will; 

Like snakes of smaller breed, she sheds her skin, 

Strips off the serpent and turns Jacobin.” 1 

In the fall of 1794 Paine began the publication of a semi¬ 
weekly newspaper called “ The Federal Orrery.” In Decem¬ 
ber of that year and the opening months of the succeeding 
year he published a series of papers, entitled “ Remarks on 
the Jacobiniad,” in which an imaginary poem was reviewed 
and made the means of satirical skits on the prominent Re¬ 
publicans of Boston. These papers probably came from 
the pen of the Rev. J. S. J. Gardiner, assistant rector of 
Trinity Church, though we believe that has not been defi¬ 
nitely proven. The satire was coarse, but none the less 
was it satire. The Federalists greeted its appearance with 
enthusiasm. “ I admire the Jacobiniad,” said Fisher Ames. 
“ The wit is keen, and who can deny its application.” 2 “ The 


1 The Invention of Letters. Works, xl-xlii. President Willard, 
of Harvard, had struck out these lines from Paine’s poem, as also 
similar ones from the poem of Prentiss, Paine’s friend, fearing they 
would give offence to Gov. Sam. Adams, himself the leading 
Jacobin of New England. Paine, however, delivered the lines, and 
two years later, in his Phi Beta Kappa poem, he scored the Demo¬ 
cratic Clubs severely. “ When the erased lines were spoken, a 
little hissing was heard, which was soon drowned by repeated, loud 
rounds of applause.” Prentiss, Introduction to Paine’s Works. 

See also The Ruling Passion. Phi Beta Kappa poem. Harvard, 
July 20, 1797. Paine’s Works, p. 188. It was in The Invention of 
Letters that occurred the famous apostrophe to Washington, 
beginning “ Could Faustus live.” Mr. W. W. Story, speaking of 
the literature of the period, says: “The Della Cruscan school then 
reigned supreme in America, and even in England the influence of 
the Lake poets was very limited. Poetry was prose gone mad. . . . 
In America there was no native poet whose reputation was superior 
to that of Robert Treat Paine, and I have often heard my father 
speak of the tremendous applause with which these lines addressed 
to Washington . . . were received as he delivered them at the Com¬ 
mencement of Harvard, in the year 1795.” Story. Life and Letters 
of Joseph Story, I, 108. 2 Ames, Works, I, 165. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


237 


Boston poets are formidable and would be guillotined, if 
the Robespierres whom they expose had the power.” 1 But 
the Democrats attacked the author of the Jacobiniad in re¬ 
turn. 2 “ The leaders of the Jacobin faction were sorely 
galled by this battery of ridicule. This drew upon him the 
summary vengeance of a mob who attacked the house of 
Major Wallach, with whom he lodged, who gallantly de¬ 
fended his castle against the unprincipled banditti and com¬ 
pelled them to retire/’ is the ponderous description given 
by Paine’s biographer of this little Boston epic. Paine 
also had a private encounter with the son of one of the 
men whom his satire had rendered sensitive. Gardiner 
was flayed in the columns of the Chronicle and Gazette. 

As good an example as may be given of Paine’s lam¬ 
poons is one he wrote a propos of the celebration held in 
Boston by the Democrats, September 21, 1795, in honor of 
the French Republic, by means of a procession and a din¬ 
ner in Faneuil Hall: 

“ Song of Liberty and Equality. Which ought to have 
been sung in Faneuil Hall on the 21st, the Birthday of the 
French Republic; and ought to be sung on the Birthday 
of all other Republics, whether male or female, that may 
hereafter be born. 

Tune, Black Sloven. 

Ye sons of equality, freedom and fun 
Come rouse at the sound of the gun—the gun: 

Awake from your stupor—for feasting prepare. 

With Sansculotte stomach let every one meet 
Like bears o’er a carcass, to fight and to eat — 

Freely we’ll share 
Whate’er stands before us, 

While Freedom’s the chorus—Huzza. 

’Tis three years, this moment, since Freedom, by chance, 

Was safely delivered of France—of France; 

And the cub is well grown, for so tender an age. 

Be sure her complexion is hardly so good— 

’Tis thought that her mother was longing for blood: 

For, when in a rage 
She’s rather uncivil, 

Cuts throats like the devil—Huzza.” 3 


1 Ames, Works, I, 163. 

2 Independent Chronicle, April 30, 1795 and May 21, 1795. 

3 Quoted by Buckingham. Specimens of Newspaper Literature, 
II, 239. 




238 


The French Revolution. 


Most vigorous opponents of all were the Hartford Wits, 
Hopkins, Humphrey, Alsop, Dwight. Hopkins wrote an 
epitaph on Robespierre: 

“ Which in some proper time to come 
We hope will grace his mournful tomb.” 

After denouncing Robespierre unsparingly and interpre¬ 
ting his career as simply giving the opportunity— 

“To prove, with Danton, which of right 
Should have in Hell the highest seat, 

An atheist or a hypocrite? ” 

he closes— 

“ May Heaven our favorite planet bear 
Far, far from Gallia’s blazing star; 

Ye lights of Europe, shun its course, 

Or order yields to lawless force, 

As though a random comet hurled, 

Should dash at once and melt the world.” 1 

“ The Echo ” is a title given to a series of parodies or 
burlesques on the newspaper articles, the speeches, ad¬ 
dresses, and proclamations of the day that were written in 
so hysterical and swollen a manner. The contributors to 
“ The Echo ” resolved to make these productions ridiculous 
by simply outdoing them. They aimed to rid the country 
of the abominable literary style so much in vogue, to exor¬ 
cise the excessively declamatory and rhetorical elements by 
means of sarcasm and caricature. 2 They also aimed at the 
same time to laugh into obscurity the Democrats whose 
minds, so inflated with the new French vaporings, seemed 
inevitably to seek expression in the most sounding rhodo- 
montade. What began then as a cheerful, exhilarating ex¬ 
ercise in the caricature of a noisy newspaper style, soon 
rose to the shrillest pitch of bitter political controversy. 


1 Dr. Lemuel Hopkins in The Poets of Connecticut. Edited by 
Rev. Charles W. Everest, p. 56. See also p. 55, poem on “ Poland.” 

2 On the evil influences of the French Revolution upon the lit¬ 
erary taste of this country, see Samuel L. Knapp’s Lectures on 
American Literature, 176. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 239 

With the exception of a few lines written by Dr. Mason 
F. Cogswell and Elihu B. Smith, and parts of one or two 
numbers, the entire work was the production of Richard 
Alsop and Theodore Dwight. 1 The authors usually quoted 
from some paper and then appended their parody. The 
following example will show their method, and at the same 
time throw some light upon the influence of the Revolution 
here. 

“ Echo XII. From the Diary of April 13, 1793. 

Messrs. Printers:— 

“ It is grating to the feelings of the friends of Liberty, to 
hear dastardly base men, protected by the mild laws of a 
plentiful Republican Country, come forward in public com¬ 
pany, among a free, enlightened, and generous people, 
whose country heretofore flowed with the blood of Warren, 
Montgomery, and the rest of Heroes and American Wor¬ 
thies, who gloriously fell in opposing the unlawful rights 
of a King; I say, shall the refuse of the human species, the 
enemies of man (I mean the friends and advocates of kings 
and despots) dare stigmatize the French nation, in the hear¬ 
ing of American patriots, with the cruel epithets of mur¬ 
derers, assassins, madmen, regicides and the like, for decap¬ 
itating Louis XVI. Do these ignorant, prejudiced wretches 
not remember that the French nation’s moderation and 
partiality to Louis exceeded everything that could in reason 
be expected from a people emerging from the vilest state of 
slavery (in which they had been kept for ages past by king¬ 
craft and priest-craft united) to the pinnacle of importance 
and power; have they not sufficiently proved their attach¬ 
ment to him, by erasing from their memories the remem¬ 
brance of their late bondage and past grievances under a 
brood of kings, and confirming him in the regal power? 


1 Everest, Poets of Connecticut, p. 94, note. 

The numbers appeared from time to time in different papers— 
American Mercury and Connecticut Courant—were widely copied 
throughout the country and, in 1807, were collected into a single 
volume called “ The Echo, Printed at the Porcupine Press by 
Pasquin Petronius.” 



240 


The French Revolution. 


In forming their constitution have they not given him 
sufficient authority and support? Have they not made the 
crown hereditary in his family, if they would prove them¬ 
selves worthy? Was there anything necessary for the honor 
and dignity of the king of a free people (if such can exist 
under the king) but was granted him? How has he re¬ 
quited them for their predilection in his favor? Did he 
not break the solemn oaths he had taken, and sacred vows 
he had made to be faithful to the nation, and govern it 
agreeably to the constitution he had accepted? Did he 
not openly despise the love of the nation for him, in at¬ 
tempting repeatedly to fly to the enemy? Did he not sup¬ 
port the emigrant princes (rather devils) and their army, 
composed of a species of beings not far distant from the 
brute creation, raised in the principalities of despots, with 
an intent to enter France with fire and sword? Patience 
would fail me, indignant horror would overwhelm me, and 
the callous heart of a Hessian . . . would shudder to enu¬ 
merate all the arts, plots, hypocrisies, perjuries, murders, 
conspiracies, etc., etc., that Louis and his base adherents 
have been guilty of, to effect a counter revolution in favor 
of despotism, which he well knew could not be done with¬ 
out the effusion of blood,” and so on at length.—G. Or no 
Friend to Kings. 

To which came back the following echo from the banks 
of the Connecticut: 

Hartford, May 6th, 1793. 

How dire, how grating to that lawless clan, 

Who build up freedom on a lawless plan, 

To hear each day a pack of dastards base— 

Mere water-gruel of the human race— 

In this our land, where freedom sprung to birth, 

The fairest portion of the spacious earth; 

Where, in strange union, Law and Peace we meet, 

And full-fed Plenty waddling thro’ the street; 

I say—how dire to see this rascal throng, 

With all the pride of self-importance strong, 

Come into company among such free, 

Such bold, enlightened, generous folks as we, 

Whose bleeding country pour’d a purple flood, 

And blush’d with Warren’s and Montgomery’s blood; 


Opinions of Americans at Home. 


241 


With other chiefs whom I’ve forgot by name, 

Tho’ doubtless numbered on the rolls of fame. 

Shall this vile refuse, this ungodly clan, 

The foes of every native right of man — 

The right of doing whatso’er he list, 

By secret stratagem or force of fist— 

I say, shall these thus impudently dare, 

Pour their vile scandals in a patriot ear, 

And call the French a pack of cruel dogs, 

Murderers, assassins, regicides or rogues; 

Merely because by soft compassion led, 

They’ve taken off their hapless monarch’s head; 

From all his woes a kind release have given, 

A.nd sent him up an extra post to heaven— 

To tell their Maker they intend to go 
Where all are equal in the world below. 

Do not these wretches know that generous nation 
The French, exceed all men in moderation, 

And that they lately have become, ’tis plain, 

E’en to a proverb, gentle and humane? 

’Tis true such instances we seldom find, 

In this degeneracy of human kind, 

Such virtue as transcends whate’er I thought, 

That pious people ever could have wrought. 

What generous feelings in their bosoms glow! 

How prompt to soothe the pangs of royal woe! 

Have they not proved, ’mid every trying scene, 

Their love most strong for Louis and his Queen? 

First, in forgetting what a brood of kings, 

Old Despotism had fledg’d beneath her wings; 

Then in depriving him of legal sway, 

Lest he should take French leave and scud away; 

Next in confining him with so much care, 

From the rude peltings of external air; 

And lastly, what I deem by far the best, 

Of love and loyalty the happy test, 

In cutting off his head to save his life 
From scenes of woe, of horror and of strife; 

And thus, by certain means, to keep away 
Old age, that mournful period of decay.” 

One of the most striking figures in this war of opinions 
about the French Revolution was William Cobbett, the 
Englishman who came to this country in 1792, bringing 
with him, as the event proved, a stinging pen. At first he 
taught school in Philadelphia, soon publishing a French 
grammar that was greatly successful at the time and that 
proved to be a book of more than ephemeral character. 


242 


The French Revolution. 


But he soon got caught in the hot controversies that were 
agitating Philadelphia and began to lash the Democrats 
under the name of Peter Porcupine. 1 His attitude toward 
the Revolutionists is well epitomized in his remark that 
there was something preposterous in the idea of a club 
of distracted monsieurs ” giving liberty to the world. The 
principles of the Revolutionists were “ anarchical ” and 
“ blasphemous/’ as much opposed to true liberty as hell is 
to heaven. The very names of his pamphlets reveal the 
vehemence and acrimony of this abusive and trenchant 
polemic —“ A Bone to Gnaw for the Democrats,” “ A Little 
Plain English,” The “ Censor,” 2 “ The Bloody Buoy, thrown 
out as a Warning to the Political Pilots of all Nations; or a 
faithful relation of a multitude of acts of horrid barbarity, 
such as the eye never witnessed, the tongue expressed, or 
the imagination conceived, until the commencement of the 
French Revolution.” Besides these and scores of other 
pamphlets on current events, Cobbett wrote a history of 
American Jacobinism, an extreme and bitter arraignment. 
He was greatly applauded by the party he aided, but bitterly 
hated by the democrats, who fell to calling him Mr. Hedge¬ 
hog—The Pork Patriot; then other things, most scurrilous, 
such as “ a celebrated manufacturer of lies,” a “ retailer of 
filth,” a “ pestiferous animal,” a “ fugitive felon,” a “ man 
with a talent at lies and Billingsgate.” This, says one 
writer, “ will convince Peter that I know him well, and that 
I have only disclosed a part of the truth.” 3 Whether it 


1 The best biography of Cobbett is by Edward Smith, London, 
1878, 2 vols. At the end of the second volume there is an excel¬ 
lent bibliography of Cobbett’s writings. His works were collected 
and published in 8 volumes, London, 1801, entitled Porcupine’s 
Works. There are also sketches of Cobbett in Sir Henry Lytton 
Bulwer’s Historical Sketches; Thorold Rogers’ Historical Glean¬ 
ings; and in Spencer T. Hall’s Biographical Sketches of Remarkable 
People. See also Harper’s Monthly, IV. 

2 “ The Censor, a work by Peter Porcupine, administers his 
monthly corrective to our disorganizes. The author is said to 
be an Englishman, who has kept school in this city.” Chauncey 
Goodrich to Oliver Wolcott. Gibbs’ Memoirs. 

3 In Bache’s Aurora. 



Opinions of Americans at Home . 


243 


does this or not, it at any rate shows in high relief the libel¬ 
lous character of most of the newspaper discussions of that 
time. 1 


SUNDRY SIDE-LIGHTS. 

The absorbing nature of the interest in the Revolution is 
shown in many other ways, in almost as many, in fact, as 
men have for expressing their thoughts and emotions. On 
all hands men fell to discussing the merits and, later, the 


1 For further references to the Revolution in the literature of the 

day see— 

George Richards. The Declaration of Independence. A Poem, 
accompanied by Odes, Songs, etc., adapted to the Day. By a 
Citizen of Boston. Boston, 1793. 

Michael Forrest. Travels through America. A Poem. Phila¬ 
delphia, 1793. 

Bleecker. The Posthumous Works of Ann Eliza Bleecker in 
prose and verse. To which is added a collection of essays, 
prose and poetical, by Margaretta V. Faugeres. New York, 
T 793 - 

Elihu B. Smith. American Poems, selected and original. Litch¬ 
field, 1793. 

The Decree of the Sun, or France Regenerated. A Poem in three 
cantos. The first offering of a youthful Muse. Boston. 

Aristocracy, an Epic Poem. Philadelphia, 1795 - 

Story. Liberty. A poem. Delivered on the 4th of July, 1795, 
by The Stranger [Isaac Story]. Newburyport, 1795. 

Freneau. Poems written between 1768 and 1794 by Philip Freneau. 
Monmouth, 1795. 

Monarchy. A Parody on the Eclogue of Pope, 1795. 

Crawford. The Progress of Liberty. A Pindaric Ode by Charles 
Crawford. Philadelphia, 1796. 

Prentiss. A Collection of Fugitive Essays in Prose and Verse by 
Charles Prentiss. Leominster, 1797. 

Arnold. Poems by the late Josias Lyndon Arnold, Esq. Provi¬ 
dence, 1797. 

Elliot. The Poetical and Miscellaneous Works of James Elliot. 
Greenfield, 1798. 

Fayette in Prison, or Misfortunes of the Great. A modern trag¬ 
edy, by a gentleman of Massachusetts. Worcester, 1802. 

Humphreys. The Miscellaneous Works of David Humphreys. 
New York, 1804. 

“The Echo,” 1807. 

Davis. Poems by Richard B. Davis. New York, 1807. 

Everest. Poets of Connecticut, 1829. 



244 


The French Revolution 


shortcomings of that strangely contradictory movement. 
Its promised glories were quickly caught up by our Fourth 
of July orators, who seemed to feel intuitively the additional 
lustre they imparted to a day already very lustrous. “ It is 
now acknowledged,’’ said John Lathrop, Jr., to the town 
authorities of Boston, “ as a fact in political biography, that 
Liberty descended from heaven on the Fourth of July, 1776. 

. . . The mighty blow resounded through the universe. . . . 
The deep-rooted thrones of aged monarchies were shaken 
to their centers.” 1 Other speakers, too, deduced the whole 
commotion from our Declaration of Independence, as did 
Mr. George Richards, in a speech at Portsmouth, New 
Hampshire: “ Neither have the effects of our independence 
been less perceptible in Europe than visible in America. It 
was a spark from the altar flame of liberty on this side of the 
Atlantic, which alighted on the pinnacle of despotism in 
France and reduced the immense fabric to ashes in the 
twinkling of an eye.” 2 John Phillips delivered a speech 
in Boston so popular that for a long time the newspapers 
continued to publish extracts from it. Deriving the initial 
cause of the Revolution from the French soldiers who had 
served in our war, and who, on returning home, viewed with 
fresh horror the despotism there prevailing, or, as the orator 
said, who “ perceived the tree of liberty profusely watered 
with their blood; its foliage spreading, yet yielding them no 
shelter; its fruit blooming and mellowing in luxuriance, yet, 
denied the delicious taste,” exciting “ no passion but despair,” 
he proceeded in this vein: “ The fervid spirit which glowed 
within them soon pervaded their country and threatened 
destruction to their government. On the first favorable 
contingency the enthusiastic energies of reviving Freedom 
burst the cerements which had confined it for two thousand 
years, and the Gothic fabric of feudal absurdity, with all its 
pompous pageants, colossal pillars and prescriptive bul¬ 
warks, the wonder and veneration of ages, was instantly 

1 Loring, Hundred Boston Orators, 255-256. 

2 Mr. Richards’ Oration on Independence, July 4, 1795. 




Opinions of Americans at Home. 245 

leveled with the dust. . . . An astonished world viewed 
with awful admiration the stupendous wreck. They beheld 
with pleasing exultation the fair fabric of Freedom rising in 
simple proportion and majestic grace upon the mighty ruin. 
The gloomy horrors of despotism fled before the splendid 
effulgence of the sun of liberty. The potent rays of science 
pierced the mist of ignorance and error; republican visions 
were realized and the reign of reason appeared to com¬ 
mence its splendid progress. . . . But the whirlwind of dis¬ 
cord threatened to raze the fabric from its foundation. The 
lowering clouds of contention hung around and darkened 
the horizon.” 1 This note of regret, of disappointment, of 
hope deferred became more pronounced as the months went 
by. William Smith, a member of Congress, and an orator 
of repute, expressed this feeling in an address to his con¬ 
stituents in Charleston, South Carolina: “Through the 
wondrous meanderings of her stupendous revolution, how 
have we rejoiced to see her combating and crushing the 
hydra of her ancient despotism. How have we mourned to 
see the brilliant prospect oft o’erclouded and the hydra of 
popular tyranny springing up in its place. ... In tracing 
the rise and progress of this astonishing revolution the 
humane American must wish to draw a veil over the mourn¬ 
ful scenes which have tarnished so bright an epoch of 
modern history. But have not even they their use? Will 
they not impress on our minds more forcibly than all the 
precepts of moralists the dire effects of the prostration of 
religion, government and law? ... At the recital of such 
atrocities human nature stands confounded. Should they 
be hereafter recorded by the faithful historian, Liberty, 
appalled, will turn from them with horror, and outraged 
Humanity, in tears, will snatch the crimsoned page from the 
polluted volume.” 2 


1 Loring, Hundred Boston Orators, 248-249. 

2 An Oration delivered in St. Philip’s Church, before the Inhab¬ 
itants of Charleston, South Carolina, on the Fourth of July, 1796, 
by William Smith, M. C. See also Loring, Hundred Boston 
Orators, 279-280, Speech by John Lowell. 




246 


The French Revolution. 


But there were those who thought differently of this 
matter. “ Citizen ” Brackenridge, one of the militant dem¬ 
ocrats of the West, delivered a Fourth of July oration in 
Pittsburg, extenuating the violence of the revolutionists. 
•“Shall we blame the intemperature of the exertions?” he 
asked. “ Was there ever enthusiasm without intempera¬ 
ture? And was there ever a great effect without enthusi¬ 
asm? Thy principles, O Liberty! are not violent and cruel; 
but in the desperation of thy effort against tyranny it is not 
always possible to keep within the limits of the vengeance 
necessary to defence. Do we accuse the air or the bastile 
of the mountain when the rock is burst and the town en¬ 
gulfed? The air of itself is mild and scarcely wafts a feather 
from its place. But, restrained and imprisoned, the yielding 
and placid element becomes indignant and tears the globe 
before it.” 1 

The French Revolution became a topic to be discussed 
in state papers. It invaded the messages and proclama¬ 
tions of several of our governors. John Hancock spoke of 
it in his Thanksgiving proclamation of ’93. 2 Governor 
Chittenden of Vermont wrote his Fast Day and Thanks¬ 
giving proclamations in a similar vein. 3 But towering above 
all others in enthusiastic expression of his admiration for 
France, more constant than all in his thought upon her 
extraordinary Revolution, was Samuel Adams, recognized 
leader of the Republicans of New England, Lieutenant- 
Governor of Massachusetts from 1789 to 1794, and Gov¬ 
ernor from that year to 1797. Adams, whose scent for lib¬ 
erty was so keen, had from the beginning looked at the 
Revolution with the most sanguine expectations. He 
gladly presided at the banquet in Faneuil Hall on the day 
of the famous Civic Feast, January 24, 1793, and on other 
similar occasions he was ever ready to propose toasts ex- 

V 

** ' " ■ ■ ■ • 1 ■ • 

1 National Gazette, July 27, 1793. See also other speeches in the 
same paper, July 24 and Aug. 16, 1793. 

2 Columbian Centinel, Oct. 9, 1793. 

3 Vermont Journal, April 1 and Nov. 11, 1793. 


4 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


247 


haling undiminished devotion to the cause. 1 During these 
years there is hardly any document from his hand that does 
not reveal a decided sympathy with the French Revolution. 2 3 
In his speech before the Legislature, January 17, 1794, he 
enters into a disquisition upon Liberty and Equality, quotes 
Montesquieu upon these subjects, and says: “The Republic 
of France have also adopted the same principle and laid it 
as the foundation of their constitution. That nation, hav¬ 
ing for many ages groaned under the exercise of the pre¬ 
tended right claimed by their Kings and Nobles, until their 
very feelings as men were become torpid, at length suddenly 
awoke from their long slumber, abolished the usurpation 
and placed every man upon the footing of equal rights.” 1 
In his Fast Day proclamation he urged the citizens of Mas¬ 
sachusetts, among other things, to implore God on that day 
“ to inspire our friends and allies, the Republic of France, 
with a spirit of wisdom and true religion, that firmly relying 
on the strength of His Almighty arm, they may still go on 
prosperously, till their arduous conflict for a government of 
their own, founded on the just and equal rights of men, 
shall be finally crowned with success.” 4 

If we seek still further evidence of this interest we may 


1 14th of July celebration, Boston, 1794; 22nd of September cele¬ 
bration, Boston, 1795. 

2 Wells, Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams, III., 329, note. 

3 Independent Chronicle, Jan. 20, 1794. The Legislature in its 
reply echoed the same sentiments. Independent Chronicle, Feb. 
20, 1794 - 

4 Independent Chronicle, March 6, 1794. For further illustrations 
see Boston Gazette, June 2, 1794; Independent Chronicle, Jan. 19 
and Oct. 19, 1795; Federal Orrery, Oct. 17, 1796. 

Adams’ letters breathe the same spirit. See Wells, III., 319 and 
321. Even after Genet’s impudence had run mad, Adams wrote him 
as follows (Oct. 22, 1793): “I am thoroughly convinced that your 
heart is animated with the same zeal for the interests of our country 
as for your own; and I have much pleasure in seeing that you 
firmly hope that a public discussion will insure to your conduct the 
approbation of all reasonable men, and will cover with shame those 
who, yielding to the force of prejudice, have so successfully aimed 
calumnies and outrageous charges at you. I hope sincerely that 
your official residence in the United States may render you per¬ 
sonally happy; and am already convinced that it cannot but be use- 



248 


The French Revolution . 


examine the newspapers, we may run over the advertise¬ 
ments of the booksellers for a clue as to what men were 
reading, and the answer is decisive. The French news 
fills more columns in the papers of the day, I think it is 
safe to say, than does the American. Among the books 
that were widely advertised and evidently widely read were 
Mirabeau’s Speeches, Cordorcet’s Life of Turgot, Letters 
from Paris in 1791 and 1792, with a Representation of the 
Capture of Louis XVI at Varennes, 2 vols., Dumouriez’s 
Memoirs, Comparative Display of Different Opinions of the 
French Revolution, Williams’ Letters from the 28th of July 
to the Establishment of the Constitution of 1795, Calendrier 
Republicain, so well received that the editor determined 
to bring it out every year—the one then advertised was for 
the Year V, Robespierre’s Reports, Rabaut’s History of the 
French Revolution, translations of the different French 
constitutions, Paine’s Rights of Man, Barlow’s Conspiracy 
of Kings and Advice to the Privileged Orders, Osgood’s 
Political Sermon (Citizen de Novion’s in reply), Heroic 
Actions of the French Republicans, Priere Republicaine, 
Morality of the Sans Culottes or Republican Gospel, Bou- 
quier’s Report on National Schools, Gregoire’s Report on 
the Means of Completing the National Library. * 1 

A study of the history of the American theater will but 
confirm the impression already made. The stage became 
political and democratic. The high wave of feeling that 
broke over the country in 1793 dashed over it too, and with 
many amusing consequences. Prigmore, a wandering 
player, took occasion to introduce politics into the comedy 
“Jenny Jumps,” thereby giving great offense to the Fed¬ 
eralists, who objected to paying for his rabid democracy 
and who vented their spleen in remarks of dubious compli¬ 
ment as to his abilities as an actor. 2 Hodgkinson, one of 

ful to the universal cause of liberty and the rights of man.” Wells, 
III., 321. This was written more than two months after Genet had 
threatened to appeal from the President to the people. 

1 All these are advertised in the Aurora. 

2 Seilhamer, History of the American Theater, III., 68. 




Opinions of Americans at Home. 249 

the best known and most popular actors of the day, brought 
endless trouble upon himself by getting tangled up in the 
turbulent discussions of the street. Once, coming on the 
stage as Captain Flash in “ Miss in Her Teens,” he wore 
an English costume, which indeed the part required, but 
some of the vigilant defenders of the cause of France among 
the “ fierce democracie ” of Tammany Hall hissed him and 
ordered him to take it off. Instead of ignoring the demand 
or simply appealing to the requirements of the play whereby 
an English officer is not unnaturally made to wear an Eng¬ 
lish uniform in an English comedy, he had the happy 
thought to say that he represented a coward and a bully, 
whereby the French faction was appeased, but the English 
thrown into high dudgeon. Then, to make a bad matter 
worse, he wrote to the Daily Advertiser, professing to give 
the exact words of his speech, and later published a card in 
which he endeavored still further “ to soften his unfortu¬ 
nate phraseology,” thus rearing up a great crop of enemies 
on every hand. 1 

Theaters, like individuals, came to range themselves more 
or less along the line of the familiar divisions. The Boston 
Theater depended largely for its patronage upon the Feder¬ 
alists, with the result that it sought to satisfy their tastes. 
Consequently a new theater, called the Haymarket, was 
built avowedly to cater to the Republicans. Divided pat¬ 
ronage threatened both, and the expedients to which both 
resorted to maintain themselves are edifying and instructive. 2 

Within, also, the French enthusiasts made themselves 
heard. They demanded of managers that the “ truly har¬ 
monic ” and “ republican tune ” of Ca ira be played at the 
performances, and this was often done. Was it not, for¬ 
sooth, the French Yankee Doodle? 3 Often did the audi- 


1 Dunlap. A History of the American Theater, p. in. For a 
somewhat similar case see Seilhamer, III., 332-3. 

2 Seilhamer, III., 332-3. See also Priest, Travels in the United 
States of America, 165-166. The Boston Haymarket Theater was 
built in 1796 at the corner of Tremont and Boylston streets. 

3 Independent Chronicle, Jan. 30, Feb. 10, Feb. 13, 1794. 




250 


The French Revolution. 


toriums resound with the warlike stanzas of the Marseillaise, 
often did they ring with such shouts as “ Vivent les Fran- 
gais! ” “ Vivent les Americains! 

The names of the plays advertised in the papers are sig¬ 
nificant. “ Tammany,” one of the earliest American operas, 
and one that enjoyed great popularity, was a work political 
in character, and pronouncedly republican, and seemed to 
Dunlap, the historian of the American Theater, and a Feder¬ 
alist in politics, as “ a melange of bombast, ’ seasoned high 
“ with spices hot from Paris,” swelling “ with rhodomon- 
tade.” While it was admitted that the opera was received 
with unbounded applause, it was said with a sneer that the 
audience was made up of “ the poorer classes of mechanics 
and clerks.” 1 2 

Helvetic Liberty, or the Lass of the Lakes; Liberty Re¬ 
stored; The Demolition of the Bastile; Tyranny Suppressed; 
Louis XVI, were other plays that were on the rude and 
shaky American stage of this period and that .show the 
temper of the time. 

And if we seek still further to know this temper, we find 
the present thesis confirmed by the descriptions of travelers, 
of Priest, Wansey, and notably of Larochefoucauld-Lian- 
court. 3 Larochefoucauld traveled leisurely all over the 
country, everywhere compelled to talk European politics, 


1 Dunlap, p. io6. 

2 Seilhamer, III., 85-86. Mrs. Holton, a sister of Mrs. Siddons, 
was the author of the book of this opera. James Hewitt, who had 
been the leader of the orchestra for many years, wrote the music. 
Mrs. Holton arrived in New York in the winter of 1793-4 and “at 
once became the bard of the American Democracy.” She wrote 
an ode on the recapture of Toulon, which was read at the celebra¬ 
tion of that event in New York and for which she won the thanks 
of the Democratic Society. She interested the Tammany Society 
in the production of her opera, after which indeed it was named. 
“ This was the first important attempt at the composition of 
operatic music in America.” Richard Bingham Davis, a young 
New York poet, then in his 23rd year, wrote a prologue. 

3 Priest, Travels in the United States of America, 1793-1797. 
Wansey, An Excursion to the United States of North America in 
the Summer of 1794. Larochefoucauld-Liancourt, Travels through 
the United States, 1795-1797. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 251 

everywhere hearing the same expressions of warm attach¬ 
ment to France, except now and then in the large centers 
where commercial interests seemed to him to vitiate men’s 
judgments. Stopping near Pottsgrove, Penn., in the early 
part of 1795, he had this experience: “The good people 
of the inn inquired with much eagerness for news from 
France. My friend told them that it would be obliged to 
sustain another and more dreadful campaign. ‘ How, a 
still more dreadful than the preceding campaign! ’ they ex¬ 
claimed—‘ notwithstanding the English were beaten last 
year? ’ ‘ There are many other enemies,’ replied my friend, 

‘ Russians, Austrians.’ ‘ Aye, aye,’ said the good people, 
‘ all those who do not like liberty; but the French will never¬ 
theless triumph, if it please God, over all the f—.’ These 
are the sentiments and such is the language of most Ameri¬ 
cans; and indeed this must be the opinion of all who are 
not acquainted with the crimes attending our revolution; 
and even they who are so, very justly impute them to the 
various factions, and carefully distinguish and separate them 
from the cause of liberty. The principles and conduct of 
the coalesced powers are treated with the same degree of 
indignation as those of the terrorists.” 1 

Public opinion farther northward was the same. From 
Saratoga he writes: “ Good wishes for the success of the 
French, a detestation of their crimes, and decided hatred 
against the English, form here the universal sentiments, as 
they do in general throughout the United States.” 2 3 * From 
Virginia: “ You hear in Virginia the same language expres¬ 
sive of attachment to France, of hatred and especially of 
distrust in regard to England, and of affection for M. de la 
Fayette, which you meet with in every other part of the 
United States that is not situated in the immediate vicinity 
of great towns and places absorbed in mercantile specula¬ 
tions.” 8 From Massachusetts: “ The general temper of the 


travels, I., 41. 2 Ibid., II., 74-75. 

3 Ibid., III., 130. On the hatred of England and the part played 

by French agents in keeping it alive, see Priest, pp. 56-57. 



252 


The French Revolution. 


people here, as in the other parts of the country which I 
have traversed, is that of respect for the president, attach¬ 
ment to the constitution, aversion to war, and an ardently 
favorable disposition toward the French.” 1 

Naturally a movement that so riveted the attention of the 
fathers produced a due effect upon the sons. Young colle¬ 
gians eagerly scanned the ground for suggestions for their 
forensic efforts. We have seen how Robert Treat Paine 
and his friend Prentiss let no academic function slip by 
without an expression of their youthful views upon the great 
and exciting topic. They were but the more conspicuous 
representatives of a class. Debates or orations were deliv¬ 
ered at Brown, Dartmouth, Yale, and Harvard upon the 
fruitful theme. The venerable Ashbel Green attended the 
Commencement at Harvard in 1791 and noted in his diary 
that the best oration was one on the French Revolution, 
spoken by a candidate for the master’s degree. 2 And the 
next year the eighth number on the programme was “ A 
French Conference. Upon the Comparative Importance of 
the American, French and Polish Revolutions to Mankind. 
By Messers. Thomas Danforth, John Gorham, and Brad- 
street Story,” and in the afternoon the exercises began with 
“ An English Oration. Upon the Progress of Reason, etc., 
concluding with some remarks upon the French Revolu¬ 
tion. By Mr. George Blake.” The editor of the Colum¬ 
bian Centinel announced that he should publish this and 
two or three other “ performances of the day,” that his 
absent readers might taste “ in a small degree, of the senti¬ 
mental banquet we enjoyed.” 3 Apparently some of these 
anniversary utterances were marked by the same violence 
and dogmatism characteristic of those heard every day in 
the newspapers and the streets, for the college authorities 
endeavored to restrict the freedom of speech on these occa- 

1 Ibid., III., 411. See also I., 55, 120; III., 250, 274-275, 397-398, 
411, 488-489, 607-609; IV., 320-321. 

2 Life of Ashbel Green, p. 234. 

3 Columbian Centinel, July 21, 1792. 



Opinions of Americans at Home . 253 

sions, which the young men, however, found adequate 
means of evading. 1 They, too, must have their turn. 

THE GROWING OPPOSITION AND ITS REASONS. 

w 

It was the introduction into America of just these follies 
that have been described in the foregoing pages, of this 
spirit of noisy criticism of everything American and indis¬ 
criminate approval of everything French, that, coupled with 
the famous Genet incident and the President’s firm stand on 
neutrality, caused many men to pause and consider what 
this Revolution really was, to examine its course and nature 
with greater care. Enthusiasm waned perceptibly. The 
conservative elements of society, at first quite as fascinated 
as the others by the rich promise of the new movement, 
now generally rallied in opposition. The number of its 
hostile critics now increased greatly. The Revolution had 
had opponents here from the very beginning, as we have 
seen, notably the Adamses, John and John Quincy, who 
had published the Discourses on Davila and the Essays of 
Publicola. A cleft in the unanimity of enthusiasm for 
France had begun to show itself with the adoption of the 
first French constitution, which was criticised by many of 
our ablest political thinkers. But now the opposition be¬ 
came more outspoken and more general. Men opposed the 
Revolution on the grounds of its violence, its hostility to 
religion, its attention to matters of trivial importance, its 
encouragement of the baneful spirit of faction, its doctrine of 
complete equality. 

Most of the violence down to the execution of Louis XVI. 
was criticised but lightly here. This does not mean that 
there was any suppression of the news, but that whatever 
turbulence had occurred was regarded merely as the fric¬ 
tion natural to times of change. The riots of June 20th were 
mildly condemned by a paper that was soon to defend 
with vigor all excesses, however extreme, the National 
Gazette, but condemned because, as the editor thought, 


1 Willard, Personal Memoirs, I., 329. 




254 


The French Revolution. 


the French themselves abhorred them. 1 2 The ioth of August 
and the September massacres stunned a good many Amer¬ 
icans, who began for the first time to view with some dis¬ 
favor a movement that could produce such horrors." With 
the dethronement of the King and his subsequent execution, 
however, came a sharp precipitation of public opinion. 
Toward Louis XVI. Americans naturally felt well disposed, 
and even affectionately grateful, and his execution and that 
of the Queen a few months later, created much indignation 
and inspired much horror. Boston celebrated its great civic 
fete the days after the King’s death, and many, when they 
heard of the latter event, regretted their participation in the 
former. The gilded horns of the famous ox were taken 
down from the top of the liberty pole and buried, and 
henceforth Boston was more sober. 

This execution of Louis XVI., toward whom Americans 
felt so kindly, horrified very many of them. “ When will 
these savages be satiated with blood?” exclaimed John 
Adams. 3 Oliver Wolcott, Sr., wrote to Oliver Wolcott, Jr., 
that he experienced heartfelt sorrow at the murder of Louis, 
for such he believed it might properly be called—“ an event, 
it is true, which might have been expected, for whenever a 
people go so far as to imprison their prince, they will never 
again trust him, but will destroy him.” 4 Similar was the 
opinion of the son. 5 Chauncey Goodrich of Connecticut 
declared it “ a wanton act of barbarity, disgraceful even to 
a Paris mob.” G Patrick Henry, a republican par excellence , 


1 National Gazette, Sept. 8, 1792. On the other hand, radical and 
optimistic Joel Barlow, who was in France at this time, said in a 
letter dated June 25th: “You will hear frightful stories about the 
riots at the Tuileries on the 20th. You must believe but little. 
There was no violence committed. The visit to the king by armed 
citizens was undoubtedly contrary to law, but the existence of a 
king is contrary to another law of a higher origin.” Todd, Life 
and Letters of Joel Barlow, 96. 

2 Columbian Centinel, Dec. 1, 1792. Life and Correspondence of 
Rufus King, I., 430. Washington’s Writings, by W. C. Ford, XII.,. 
202-203. Gibbs’ Memoirs, I., 81-85. 

3 John Adams, Life and Works, II., 160. 

4 Gibbs’ Memoirs, I., 91. 5 1 ., 90. 0 1., 90. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 255 

was loud in reprobating the execution of the King. 1 One 
paper declared, “ The account of the decapitation of Louis 
XVI. appears to affect every American with grief and 
horror as an act of wanton cruelty, justified by no existing 
necessity,” and it predicted that France herself would soon 
repent; 2 3 another, that the death sentence was an “unjust 
and iniquitous judgment,” 1 and that “the cruel and unjust 
assassination of the late unfortunate monarch must stamp 
indelible infamy on the transactions of that ferocious party 
who at present sway a many-headed power in the Gallic 
nation.” 4 Washington disapproved, 5 6 and so did Jay, 0 and so 
did Fisher Ames. 7 But the condemnation of this act of the 
revolutionists was by no. means unanimous here. The more 
devoted of the republicans either openly defended it or 
sought some way of extenuating it, softening its signifi¬ 
cance. “ Whether the execution of Louis XVI. was politic 
or impolitic,” said the Vermont Gazette, “we shall not at 
present decide, but the general fact that the French people 
have the right to choose whatever form of government 
they please admits of no doubt.” 8 The “ Aurora ” published 
an Elegy on the Death of Louis XVI., moderate in tenor. 
France, to be sure, had suffered much from kings, but 
dragging Louis from his throne should be enough to atone 
for this. 

“ This lesson, Frenchmen, from Columbia learn, 

To smart th’ oppressor’s hand, but not consume; 


Frenchmen, be cautious in your growing work. 
Nor blast your journal with th’ increasing blot,— 
Behind one fault, ’tis found, vast numbers lurk 
Unseen, till crowding, they dilate the spot! ” 9 


1 Conway’s Randolph, 153. 

2 Spooner’s Vermont Journal, April 8, 1793. 

3 Gazette of United States, March 20, 1793. 

4 Gazette of United States, April 13, 1793. 

5 Ford’s Washington, May 6, 1793, xii., 288-89. 

6 Jay’s Life and Correspondence, IV., 200-202. 

7 Fisher Ames’ Works, edited by Seth Ames, II., 33. 

8 Vermont Gazette, July 12, 1793. Also Boston Gazette, May 13, 

03. 9 General Advertiser and Aurora, March 26, 1793. 




256 


The French Revolution . 


But others went much further. The National Gazette 
illustrates extremely well the facility with which many of our 
newspapers of the pronouncedly democratic class adapted 
themselves to the exigencies of shifting situations and even 
sought to exploit them for partisan purposes. In September, 
1792, it condemned the project of dethroning Louis XVI. as 
uncalled for, violent, repulsive to the cooler heads, 1 but a fort¬ 
night later it began to hedge, saying that time would prob¬ 
ably show that the King had acted “ the political hypocrite.”* 
“ The king’s trial,” it said later, “ will soon unveil his real 
character to the world,” * 8 and in another month this paper’s 
adaptation to the situation was complete. It saw its bear¬ 
ing upon home affairs and began to publish articles excus¬ 
ing the execution and then even defending it. “ The general 
concern that seems to agitate the citizens of the United 
States at the accounts of the traitorous and perjured Louis 
XVI., the inveterate enemy of the people, having lost his 
head, is a convincing proof of a strong remaining attach¬ 
ment to royalty in this country,” says the first of these 
articles in the new style. “ Let any man recollect the conduct 
of Louis Capet, his many heinous sins, his flight after having 
taken an oath to be faithful to the nation, the impediments 
he constantly threw in the way of the revolution and the 
aid he afforded to the enemies of France, and lastly, his 
treason and reiterated instances of hypocrisy—I say when 
a man considers these things, let him reflect if Louis merits 
our tears or compassion. On the other hand let him 
revolve in mind the fate of those victims sacrificed in the 
Champs de Mars by royalty and Lafayette [between twelve 
and fifteen hundred this paper says were killed]; also the 
fate of those patriots who fell on the 10th of August and the 
1200 defenders of liberty maimed and massacred at Frank¬ 
fort—these, and not the momentary fate of a perjured king, 
should be causes for exciting the sigh of sympathy from th e 
breasts of real republicans.” 4 In the next issue com es 


1 National Gazette, September 26, 1792. 

8 February 20, 1793. 


2 October 10, 1792. 
4 March 20, 1793. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


257 


sarcasm at the expense of those who sympathize with the 
fate of Louis. The “ American Royalists ” are embarrassed 
how to show their grief: “whether by muffling all the bells for 
at least twelve months; by dressing as mourners—in which 
case they must wait till the court leads the way; or by burn¬ 
ing the 693 members voting for death in effigy.” 1 In the 
succeeding issues come defenses thick and fast, 2 then low 
abuse. An article appeared entitled “ Louis Capet has lost 
his Caput.” “ From my use of a pun it may be seen that I 
think lightly of his fate. I certainly do. It affects me no 
more than the execution of another malefactor.” 3 The 
charge that Americans showed ingratitude by joining in 
exultation at the fall of a benefactor was indignantly re¬ 
pelled. There was a time when General Arnold was entitled 
to the praise and gratitude of Americans, but when his 
true character became known, were they still bound to 
honor and revere him? 4 Are we, out of gratitude, to sup¬ 
port a man in wrongdoing? Nothing could be more 
abhorrent to the moral sense. 5 True, he made a treaty of 
alliance with us, but that is no occasion for gratitude, for 
in all this he was utterly irresponsible, “ he knew not what 
he was about.” 8 Far from being abashed by the tales of 
crime that came rolling in, the editor affirms that the 
most recent accounts from France are “extremely satisfac¬ 
tory to every true American citizen.” “ Since the Roman 
republic, nothing in point of dignity or resolution can be 
compared to the magnanimity of our Gallic friends,” 7 and? 
“ Equality,” writing to the paper, declared that the justice 
of the judgment of Louis had not been exceeded “ since the 
days of Moses, that great legislator.” 8 Other papers were 
equally eager to defend or extenuate the execution of the 
King. 9 


1 National Gazette, March 23, 1793. 

2 April 17, 20; May n, 15; June 8, 1793. 

4 February 20, 1793. 

6 May 1, 1793 - 7 May 1, 1793 - 

9 Boston Gazette, American Daily Advertiser. 


8 April 20, 1793. 
5 May 11, 1793. 

8 June 15, 1793. 




258 


The French Revolution. 


There were cases enough of vulgar insult, too. The inci¬ 
dent at a Philadelphia banquet, where the head of a pig, 
representing Louis XVI., was passed around and mangled 
by the feasters, has already been mentioned. 1 William Cob- 
bett testifies to the following, in his usual free and easy 
style: “Never was the memory of any man so cruelly 
insulted as that of this mild and humane monarch. He 
was guillotined in effigy, in the capital of the Union, twenty 
or thirty times every day, during one whole winter and 
part of the summer. Men, women and children flocked 
to the tragical exhibition, and not a single paragraph ap¬ 
peared in the papers to shame them from it.” 2 3 

Half-way between Chester and Wilmington was an inn 
where the stage usually stopped. The innkeeper at this 
time had a sign painted, representing a decapitated female, 
the head lying by the side of the bleeding trunk, underneath 
which was the inscription, “ The guillotined Queen of 
France.” 8 This, however, was too much for the public, 
who compelled its alteration. 

The truth is that there were large numbers of Americans 
willing to defend almost every excess which the Revolution¬ 
ists might see fit to commit. Nor were they by any means 
simply the low, disorderly, irresponsible elements of the 
population who went to this extreme. Jefferson, whose 
letters from France had showed great faith in the good 
intentions of the King, was moved to simply one or two 
cool allusions when he heard of his death: “We have just 
received here the news of the decapitation of the King of 
France. Should the present foment in Europe not produce 
republics everywhere, it will at least soften the monarchical 
governments by rendering monarchs amenable to punish¬ 
ment like other criminals, and doing away that rages of 
insolence and oppression, the inviolability of the king’s 
person. We, I hope, shall adhere to our republican gov- 


1 P. 183. 2 Hist, of Am. Jac. 26, 27. 

3 Larochefoucauld, Travels, III., 488, 489. 




Opinions of Americans at Home. 259 

ernment, and keep it to its original principles by narrowly 
watching it.” 1 

Madison, another Republican leader, wrote in a similar 
vein to Jefferson: “The sympathy with the fate of Louis 
has found its way pretty generally into the mass of our 
citizens, but relating merely to the man, and not to the 
monarch, and being derived from the spurious accounts in 
the papers of his innocence, and the bloodthirstiness of his 
enemies. I have not found a single instance in which a fair 
statement of the case has not new-modelled the sentiment. 
‘ If he ‘was a traitor he ought to be punished as well as 
another man.’ This has been the language of so many 
plain men to me that I am persuaded it will be found to 
express the universal sentiment whenever the truth shall be 
made known.” 2 

Thus there were those who would defend the excesses of 
the Revolution as well as those who would attack them. 
And this continued to the end. The execution of the King, 
an act very conspicuous in itself, precipitated public opinion. 
Were men willing to defend the violence therein shown, or 
not? If they could view without disapproval, or even with 
approbation, the execution of one to whom they owed so 
much as the King, they would have no difficulty in accom¬ 
modating themselves to the fate of others in whom they had 
no direct personal interest. And this proved to be the case. 
The execution of the Girondists, of the Queen, the Reign of 
Terror, were attacked and defended generally along the lines 
already so deeply drawn by the execution of our benefactor. 
John Adams might continue his vigorous broadsides; Fisher 
Ames might express his deep abhorrence of the Revolu¬ 
tion, of “ its despotism by the mob or the military from the 
first,” “its hypocrisy of morals to the last ”; 8 he might say 
that if others could find “ in the scenes that pass there or in 
the principles or agents that direct them, proper subjects 
for amiable names, and sources of joy and hope in the pros- 


1 Jefferson’s Works, III., 527, March 18, 1793. 

2 Letters of James Madison, I., 577- 3 Ames’ Works, II., 71-88. 





260 


The French Revolution. 


pect,” he had nothing to say, it was an amusement which 
it was not his intention either to disturb or to partake of. 
He might add that whatever political improvements might 
be hoped for, economically, industrially, France presented 
only a wide field of waste and desolation. “ Capital, which 
used to be food for manufactures, is become their fuel. 
What once nourished industry now lights the fires of civil 
war and quickens the progress of destruction. France is 
like a ship with a fine cargo burning to the water’s edge.” 1 
Hamilton might indignantly resent the assertion made by 
republicans that there was no more spilling of innocent 
blood in the French than in our own Revolution and might 
vehemently deny the justice of any comparison between the 
two—the difference being no less great “ than that between 
liberty and licentiousness .” 2 But these men by no means 
represented the only point of view, even among the edu¬ 
cated. There were those who sincerely believed and stoutly 
maintained that our own liberties were bound up inextricably 
with those of France, and that these were fearfully menaced 
by all the potentates of Europe; that any excesses France 
might commit were pardoned by the fundamental and 
supreme right of self-defense. Men by no means blood¬ 
thirsty held this view. The mild, large-minded Gallatin 
was of this class. “As to the present cause of France,” he 
writes, “ although I think that they have been guilty of 
many excesses, that they have many men amongst them 
who are greedy of power for themselves and not of liberty 
for the nation, and that in the present temper they are not 
likely to have a very good government within any short 
time, yet I firmly believe their cause to be that of mankind 
against tyrants, and at all events that no foreign nation has 
a right to dictate a government to them. So far I think 
we are interested in their success; and as to our political 
situation, they are certainly the only real allies we have yet 

1 Ames’ Works, II., 33. 

2 Hamilton’s Writings, Lodge, VIII., 302-303. 


/ 





Opinions of Americans at Home. 


261 


had. 1 And a few months later: “France at present offers 
a spectacle unheard of at any other period. Enthusiasm 
there produces an energy equally terrible and sublime. All 
those virtues which depend upon social or family affections, 
all those amiable weaknesses which our natural feelings 
teach us to love or respect, have disappeared before the 
stronger, the only, at present, powerful passion, the Amor 
Patriae. I must confess my soul is not enough steeled not 
sometimes to shrink at the dreadful executions which have 
restored at least apparent internal tranquillity to that repub¬ 
lic. Yet, upon the whole, as long as the combined despots 
press upon every frontier and employ every engine to de¬ 
stroy and distress the interior parts, I think they and they 
alone are answerable for every act of severity or injustice, 
for every excess, nay, for every crime, which either of the 
contending parties in France may have committed.” 2 And 
Jefferson could write to Mr. Short, reproving him in a most 
paternal fashion for the extreme warmth with which he had 
censured the proceedings of the Jacobins. Jefferson men¬ 
tioned the attempt of the “ Patriots,” to which class he 
thought the latter belonged, to retain an hereditary execu¬ 
tive in the reformed state. “ The experiment failed com¬ 
pletely, and would have brought on the re-establishment of 
despotism had it been pursued. The Jacobins knew this, 
and that the expunging of . that office was of absolute neces¬ 
sity. And the nation was with them in opinion,” Jefferson . 
proceeds to say, “ for, however they might have been for¬ 
merly for the constitution framed by the first assembly, they 
were come over from their hope in it and were now generally 
Jacobins. In the struggle which was necessary, many 
guilty persons fell without the forms of trial, and with them 
some innocent. These I deplore as much as anybody, and 
shall deplore some of them to the day of my death. But I 
deplore them as I should have done had they fallen in battle. 
It was necessary to use the arm of the people, a machine not 

1 Life of Albert Gallatin, by Henry Adams, Aug. 25, 1793, 103-104. 

2 Adams, Life of Gallatin, no. 




262 


The French Revolution. 


quite so blind as balls and bombs, but blind to, a certain 
degree. A few of their cordial friends met at their hands 
the fate of enemies. But time and truth will rescue and 
embalm their memories, while their posterity will be enjoy¬ 
ing that very liberty for which they would never havev hesi¬ 
tated to offer up their lives. The liberty of the whole earth 
was depending on the issue of the contest, and was ever 
such a prize won with so little innocent blood? My own 
affections have been deeply wounded by some of the mar¬ 
tyrs to this cause, but rather than that it should have failed 
I would have seen half the earth desolated; were there but 
an Adam and an Eve left in every country, and left free, it 
would be better than as it now is. I have expressed to you 
my sentiments because they are really those of ninety-nine 
in a hundred of our citizens. ... You have been wounded 
by the sufferings of your friends and have by this circum¬ 
stance been hurried into a temper of mind which would be 
extremely disrelished if known to your countrymen. . . . 
I know your republicanism to be pure, and that it is no 
decay of that which has embittered you against its votaries 
in France, but too great a sensibility at the partial evil with 
which its object has been accomplished there.” 1 

The misfortunes of another, Lafayette, were followed 
with far more sympathetic interest here than were those of 
the King. As soon as it began to be rumored about that he 
was in trouble, Americans hastened to offer him a home in 
this country if he would only come. 5oon formal addresses 
to him found their way into the papers, and soon toasts 
breathing the sentiment of loyalty and commiseration were 
proposed at the banquets then all the rage. ■ Americans, 
boisterously praising the French Republic, were in some¬ 
what of a dilemma in praising one who was opposed to 
that Republic and whose acts seemed to smack of treach¬ 
ery to his country. But the dilemma was generally ignored, 
a contradiction more or less being allowed men living- in 


1 Jefferson to Short, Jan. 3, 1793, III., 501-503. 



Opinions of Americans at Home . 


263 


such tumultuous and chaotic times. The following toast 
betrays this half-disturbed state of mind: “ Our Friend and 
Brother, Lafayette. May a generous nation forgive his 
errors (if any) and receive him to her bosom.” * 1 But most 
of them revealed no consciousness of any wrongdoing on 
Lafayette’s part. “ The unfortunate but patriotic Lafayette! 
May he outlive his enemies and return in triumph to the 
arms of his enraptured' and enlightened countrymen.” 2 3 
“The Marquis de La Fayette! May the gloom of a des¬ 
pot’s prison be soon exchanged for the embraces of his 
father Washington, in the land of freedom.” 8 “ The Mar¬ 

quis de la Fayette! Released from his dungeon, may the 
swiftest gale of the Atlantic waft him to the embraces of a 
grateful nation,” 4 were sentiments voiced at various din¬ 
ners. He was extolled in a poem read at a Harvard cele¬ 
bration. The Columbian Centinel declared that it was 
unfortunate for him that the castle of Spandau was not situ¬ 
ated as near Philadelphia as the Bastille was to Paris, for, 
were it only so situated, the free-born sons of Columbia 
would glory in effecting the liberation of their hero. 5 6 

Everywhere Americans speak of De la Fayette “ with 
tears in their eyes,” writes the traveller Larochefoucauld, 
whose opportunities for knowing were excellent. “ May he 
come, said a man to us this morning who was riding on 
horseback by the side of our carriage—may the Marquis 
come, we will make him rich. It is through him that France 
made us free; never shall we be able to do so much for him 
as he has done for us.” G And later he says that “ to cherish 
and commiserate Fayette seems to be a sort of religious duty 
in this country,” 7 while there are numbers of honest souls 

\ 

1 Gazette of the United States, March 20, 1793. 

2 Bache’s General Advertiser, March 4, 1793; see also ibid. July 
3 i, I 793 - 

3 Federal Orrery, Feb. 25, 1796; see also ibid. April 21, 1796. 

4 Independent Chronicle, July 7, 1796. 

5 Columbian Centinel, May 29, 1793. 

6 Larochefoucauld-Liancourt. Travels through the United States, 

II, 53. . 7 Ibid. Ill, 250. 



264 


The French Revolution. 


everywhere to be found “ who declare that a general tax 
imposed for the sole purpose of raising for him a consid¬ 
erable property would be paid with the greatest cheerfulness 
throughout the whole extent of America.” 1 

Washington could do nothing for the release of his friend 
except to make a personal entreaty of the rulers of Austria 
and Prussia, for we did not yet have any official diplomatic 
intercourse with them. He directed Jefferson to instruct 
Morris to “ neglect no favorable opportunity of expressing 
informally the sentiments and wishes of this country.” 2 
That Morris did wliat he could is shown by his Diary. 3 

Washington’s interest in Lafayette gave rise to one of the 
most famous poems of the day. William Bradford, once 
seeing him weep at mention of Olmiitz, went home and 
composed “The Lament of Washington,” a poem that 
immediately attained a great popularity and was everywhere 
recited and sung: 

“ As beside his cheerful fire, 

Midst his happy family, 

Sat a venerable sire, 

Tears were starting in his eye, 

Selfish blessings were forgot, 

Whilst he thought on Fayette’s,lot, 

Once so happy in our plains, 

Now in poverty and chains. 


Courage, Child of Washington! 

Though thy fate disastrous seems, 

We have seen the setting sun 
Rise and burn with brighter beams. 

Thy country soon shall break thy chain 
And take thee to her arms again.” 4 


1 Ibid. Ill, 397-398. 

2 Washington’s Writings. Ford’s edition, March 13, 1793. 

8 Morris. Diary and Letters, passim. For the services rendered 
the Lafayettes by this country see Tuckerman’s Life of General 
Lafayette, II, 105, 142, 219, and Mme. de Lasteyrie’s Life of 
Madame de Lafayette, 260-262, 313, 317-322. 

4 Bradford’s verses “ were sometimes sung to a plaintive air, com¬ 
posed on the execution of Marie Antoinette, which was current in 


I 




Opinions of Americans at Home. 


265 


Thus we see that Americans felt most keenly the meaning 
of the violence of the Revolution. Some were willing to go 
to all lengths in defending it as an unfortunate necessity, 
while others condemned it in the most relentless rhetoric. 
It made men give an account to themselves of this swift and 
strange movement. And though some remained loyal de¬ 
fenders to the end, others, like Thomas McKean, were 
startled back from the path they were treading by the shock 
of the King’s execution. “ It is true,” writes McKean 
twenty years later to John Adams, “ I was a friend of the 
revolution in France, from the assembly of the Notables until 
the King was decapitated, which I deemed not only a very 
atrocious but a most absurd act. After the limited mon¬ 
archy was abolished I remained in a kind of apathy with 
regard to the leaders of the different parties, until I clearly 
perceived that nation was incapable at that time of being 
ruled by a popular government; and when the few , and 
afterward an individual, assumed a despotic sway over them, 
I thought them in a situation better than under the govern¬ 
ment of a mob, for I would prefer any kind of government 
to such a state, even tyranny to anarchy.” 1 Such was also 


Philadelphia after that melancholy tragedy.” Griswold, Republi¬ 
can Court, 393. 

In 1795 Lafayette’s son, George Washington Lafayette, came to 
this country, where he remained for nearly two years. Washington 
withdrew him from public notice, for which he was vigorously 
criticised by the democrats as showing gross inhospitality toward 
the son of a great benefactor. “ It was circulated among these 
devils,” writes Jeremiah Smith, “that the President took no notice 
of the lad, because he loved the British and hated the French.” 
Morison: Life of Jeremiah Smith, 98. See also Lodge’s Cabot, 
88. Young Lafayette while here assumed the name of Motier and 
lived in seclusion near New York. Reasons of state prevented 
Washington, as President, from entertaining emigrants, but as soon 
as he became a private citizen he welcomed many of his old com¬ 
panions in arms to Mt. Vernon. He also bade Lafayette, Jr., to 
make his home with him until his return to France, which he did. 
See Custis, Recollections and Private Memoirs, 448-449. On Wash¬ 
ington’s attitude toward Lafayette’s imprisonment see also Gris¬ 
wold, Republican Court, 390-392, and Sullivan, Familiar Letters, 
107. 1 Life and Works of John Adams, X, 14. 



266 


The French Revolution. 


the effect of this “ second ” revolution upon John Jay, 1 2 who 
had approved the “ first/’ As the Revolution proceeded, its 
increasing violence increased the number of its hostile 
critics here/ 

Another feature of the Revolution that looked most 
doubtful to American eyes was the open hostility to religion. 
John Adams wrote, in 1790, that he knew not “what to 
make of a republic of thirty million atheists.” 3 Patrick 
Henry, who thought that even deism was “ but another 
name for vice and depravity,” was bound to look with dis¬ 
favor upon a certain class of revolutionary deeds. 4 Many 
Americans during the 18th century feared the influence of 
the skeptical French philosophy of the day, and when the 
Revolution came, giving, as it seemed to do, an official utter¬ 
ance to that philosophy, they were all the more alarmed. 5 
This, too, was a very important consideration with Hamil¬ 
ton, as is shown in the fragment already referred to, in 
which he criticised the Revolution with extreme severity. 
Reviewing the successive steps in the audacious attack of 
the eighteenth century upon Christianity, until irreligion, 
“ no longer confined to the closets of conceited sophists, nor 
to the haunts of wealthy nobles, has more or less displayed 
its hideous front among all classes,” he adds: “ A league has 
at length been cemented between the apostles and disciples 
of irreligion and anarchy. Religion and government have 
both been stigmatized as abuses; as unwarrantable restraints 
upon the freedom of man; as causes of the corruption of his 
nature, intrinsically good,” and the upshot of his argument 

1 Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, IV., 200-201. 

2 See also Trumbull’s Autobiography, 170. 

3 Works, IX, 563. Letter to Dr. Price, April 19, 1790. 

4 Wm. Wirt Henry. Life, Correspondence and Speeches of 
Patrick Henry, II, 570. 

5 Timothy Dwight. Sermons. 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1828. On 
Dwight as a champion of Christianity against the assaults of free¬ 
thinkers, especially those begotten in France in the 18th century, 
see Tyler, Three Men of Letters, 109-116. Dwight published in 
1788 “The Triumph of Infidelity,” a satire; in reality a defense of 
the Christian faith and even Christian orthodoxy. 




Opinions of Americans at Home. 267 

is that such maxims, once firmly lodged in men’s minds, 
naturally, inevitably, produce a French Revolution. 1 

Similar considerations also exerted a great influence upon 
Noah Webster’s thought and found expression in his writ¬ 
ings. In 1793 Webster had become the editor of a new 
daily paper in New York, the Minerva, founded for the 
express purpose of combating the French faction under 
Genet. He had previously written, under the name Candor, 
in the “ Courant,” in a vein favorable to the French, but a 
conversation with Genet, whom he happened to meet at 
a dinner in New York, completely changed his views. 2 
Henceforth he was a severe, though on the whole discrim¬ 
inating critic of the Revolution. In the next year he worked 
over his various newspaper comments on the Revolution 
into a pamphlet of some seventy pages. 3 Upon the title- 
page he asserts his marked preference for the old-fashioned 
philosophy of Cicero, which said that religion ought never 
to be despised; that the foundations of the state ought to be 
laid in religious institutions, to the “ latest French fashion ” 
of philosophy, which declares that “ religion in no country 
is founded in truth ” and that “ death is an everlasting 
sleep.” Webster maintains that the French, far from being 
the true liberals they claim to be, are in reality the most 
implacable persecutors of opinion, and he goes on to argue 
that the Revolution is necessarily fatal to morality, that 
by removing all religious restraints it has increased vio¬ 
lence, which will in time “ decivilize ” the people, and is in¬ 
deed fast doing so, as is shown in the September massacres, 
the war against Lyons and Toulon, and the actions of the 
Revolutionary Tribunal. 

The conservative press of the country published accounts 
of the speeches and measures directed against the religious 
institutions of France, which were widely copied and un- 


1 Lodge. Hamilton’s Works, VII, 374 - 377 - 

2 Scudder. Life of Noah Webster, 130. 

3 Noah Webster. The Revolution in France considered in Re¬ 
spect to its Progress and Effects. New York, 1794. 




268 


The French Revolution. 


doubtedly influential. The Gazette of the United States, 
for instance, printed an extract from a speech delivered in 
the Convention by M. Dupont, which aroused the suspicion 
or wrath of many Americans, for whom this side of the 
Revolution had no attractions. 

“What! [he exclaims] monarchies are extirpated, thrones 
are overturned, and sceptres are broken to pieces, kings are 
no more; yet the altars of God remain. Shame to the en¬ 
lightened spirit of Frenchmen! Will you permit still to 
exist these ignominious monuments of our ignorance and 
weakness? You have freed your country from the bondage 
of execrable tyrants; rescue them also from the infamous 
dominion of superstition that enslaves and shackles the 
mind. Nature and reason—these ought to be the gods of 
man—these are my gods. Kings and priests are leagued 
in one cursed design—and the cursed instrument of the latter 
is eternal fire. Let others tremble at this terrific bugbear. 
As for me, I despise it; as for myself, I here honestly confess 
to this Assembly I am an atheist.” 1 This called forth many 
vigorous comments. 

Later, the New York Herald, the weekly edition of the 
Minerva, called the attention of its readers to “ one of the 
most extraordinary publications ever circulated in America, 
entitled Christianity Unveiled.” “ Certain men in this 
country,” says the editor, “ espouse not French politics 
merely, but French infidelity , and openly avow their hopes 
and wishes to see the religion of our country eradicated and 
the system of reason established here as in France.” The 
book under consideration was a translation from the French 
of Boulanger and claimed to be an examination of the prin¬ 
ciples and effects of the Christian religion. “ It is much of 
a piece,” says the editor, “ with many other books which 
our modern democratic patriots are reprinting and circu¬ 
lating with great industry and with the professed design of 
undermining Christianity for the purpose of establishing 
Reason in its place.” He then gives the following extracts: 


1 Gazette of the United States, March 13, 1793. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 269 

“ The only morality taught by Christians is the enthusi¬ 
astic, impracticable, contradictory and uncertain morality 
contained in the Gospel. This is calculated only to degrade 
the mind, to render virtue odious, to form abject slaves, to 
break the spring of the soul; or if it is sown in warm and 
active minds, to produce turbulent fanatics, capable of shak¬ 
ing the foundations of society.” 

“ Proud of the protection of Jehovah, the Hebrews 
marched forth to victory. Heaven authorized in them 
knavery and cruelty.” 

“ Does it [the Christian religion] render mankind better? 
Alas! it arms them against each other, renders them intol¬ 
erant, and forces them to butcher their brethren.” 

The editor says he would not have published these ex¬ 
tracts except to show the depravity of a sect among us. 1 

Later he notices one of the articles of the new French 
Declaration of Rights, to the effect that men should do to 
others what they wish others to do to them. This he says 
may be considered curious. “ This would raise our sur¬ 
prise as an unusual effort of human wisdom had it not been 
a maxim or precept in the mouth of every Christian man, 
woman and child for nearly eighteen centuries. Very for¬ 
tunate is it, indeed, that the Golden Rule has received the 
sanction of the French Convention. It may have a good 
effect upon our Democrats.” 2 

It was with the accusations of irreligion that the Ameri¬ 
can defenders of France had the greatest difficulty. There 
was indeed a faction here to which these attacks of the 
French were not repugnant, but pleasing, were even sym¬ 
pathetic, and many anti-Christian pamphlets were published 
at this time. But the majority of the admirers of France 
were rather thrown on the defensive by this phase of the 
Revolution, and sought to soften the appearance of harsh¬ 
ness and injustice in French proceedings and to palliate, 
extenuate, explain away. Speaking of Dupont’s utterance 
in the National Assembly, quoted above, the National Ga- 


1 New York Herald, March 17, 1795- 


2 Oct. 21, 1795- 





270 


The French Revolution . 


zette said that while he could declare himself an atheist with¬ 
out harm and even with plaudits, he would have been 
roundly hissed had he declared himself an aristocrat. “ But 
after all, what does it prove except that an aristocrat is a 
more dangerous animal than either a deist or an atheist. 
The aristocrat oppresses the moral and physical faculties of 
men, the deist or atheist oppresses nobody.” His opinions 
are his own, and “ ask not the aid of cruel and rich priests.” 
He is not the one who sets up stakes and fires religious 
animosity. France does not wish to be under the despotism 
of cruel and crafty priests, and who can blame her! 1 Later, 
this same paper approves the suppression of the ringing of 
church bells, and hopes this will be imitated here. In cities 
it is “ one of the most prominent nuisances.” “ The hateful 
knell, which was congenial to the gloomy habits of monks 
and such beings . . . can by no means be acceptable to a 
busy and industrious laity; and many there are who are 
hurried from the bed of sickness to the grave in conse¬ 
quence of this superstitious abomination.” 2 

Others, instead of approving, attempted to show that the 
charge of irreligion was unfounded. The Aurora quotes 
Art. 7 of the French Constitution: “The right of peaceful 
assemblies and the free exercise of all religious worship can 
not be forbidden.” Is not this enough to refute the charge 
so lightly made? 3 Other attempts of a similar nature were 
made by other papers. 4 These men, hard pressed during 
the first few years of the Revolution, leaped with exultation 
when Robespierre brought on his new religion. Eagerly 
did they seize his speech on the Supreme Being as a refuta¬ 
tion of the charge of irreligion that had so often been 
brought against the Revolution. Henceforth their oppo¬ 
nents must look about for some other accusation. “ The pub¬ 
lications of Robespierre, who is now the organ of the Repub¬ 
lic, prove that the French are influenced by the purest 


1 National Gazette, March 27, 1793. 

2 Aurora, Feb. 18, 1794. 

* Independent Chronicle, March 6, 1794. 


2 March 30, 1793. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


271 


motives. That they have a just sense of the Supreme 
Being and are led to adopt the wisest and most orthodox 
principles of any nation in Europe.” England, on the 
other hand, is a disgrace to religion, and its ministers and 
priests are become lawless banditti to invade the thoughts 
and tyrannize over the consciences of men. 1 Accounts are 
given of the grand festival to the Supreme Being. “Yet 
this is the nation that is accused of atheism and irreligion.” 1 
Indeed, how gross a calumny thrown on this band of repub¬ 
licans by their enemies! It is only “the desperate effort of 
men who sicken at their prosperity.” 2 

But while there were those who defended the religious 
policy of the Revolutionists, there were others, ardent be¬ 
lievers in the movement, upholders of it against all comers, 
who seemed to feel that in this one particular the French 
were going astray. Most conspicuous among these was 
Governor Samuel Adams, who, in his Fast Day proclama¬ 
tion in 1794, gave as one of the reasons for such a day that 
among other things we might implore God “ to inspire 
our friends and allies, the Republic of France, with a spirit 
of wisdom and true religion; that firmly relying on the 
strength of His Almighty arm, they may still go on pros¬ 
perously till their arduous conflict for a government of their 
own, founded on the just and equal rights of men, shall be 
finally crowned with success; and above all, to cause the 
religion of Jesus Christ in its true spirit to spread far and 
wide till the whole earth shall be filled with His glory.” 3 

Like every other organ of public opinion at that time, the 
pulpits fell to discussing the merits and defects of the Revo¬ 
lution. And in the attitude that the preachers took we see 
the same diversity, the same varied interpretation as else¬ 
where. Many were repelled by the lawlessness and impiety 
that characterized it, the one seeming to occasion the other 
and to reinforce it. Men made their reputations as pulpit 


1 Independent Chronicle, July 24, 1794. 

2 Independent Chronicle, Aug. 4, 1794. For further remarks on 
Robespierre and religion see Ind. Chr., Aug. 7, Aug. n, Sept. 4. 

3 Independent Chronicle, March 6, 1794. 




272 


The French Revolution. 


orators by reason of their utterances on this subject. Thus 
the first thing which brought the Rev. David Osgood, A. M., 
pastor of the Congregational Church in Medford, prom¬ 
inently before the public was a political sermon delivered on 
Thanksgiving Day, 1794, in which he denounced the ex¬ 
cesses of the Revolution, and especially the pernicious 
Genet and “ certain self-created societies.” The discourse 
passed through several editions within a few months. From 
this time on Osgood was greatly admired and applauded 
by the Federalists, of whose principles he was a stout and 
able defender. 1 Consequently he was instantaneously 
attacked by the opposition, who denounced this “ inquisi¬ 
torial ecclesiastic ” as densely ignorant and as favoring 
monarchy. 2 And the “ Citoyen de Novion,” who was no 
other than James Sullivan, later Governor of Massachusetts, 
came forward to vanquish the presumptuous parson in an 
energetic lay sermon entitled “ The Altar of Baal Thrown 
Down, or the French Nation Defended against the Pulpit 
Slander of David Osgood, A. M.” 

But all Thanksgiving sermons were not of the same 
tenor as Parson Osgood’s. The pastor of the church in 
Rowley, Mass., Ebenezer Bradford, declared in 1795 that 
“ No event in the course of Divine Providence, except the 
enjoyment of the Gospel, can be estimated more highly or 
rationally demand more gratitude from an American than 
the late successes of the French nation.” 3 


1 Sprague. Annals of the American Pulpit, II, 76. See also 

Morison. Life of Jeremiah Smith, 67-68. “ By the way, we are 

all hugely pleased with Parson Osgood’s Thanksgiving sermon and 
swear . . . that he was inspired. If the virtuous members of Con¬ 
gress (meaning those of our party) had the power to confer de¬ 
grees, he would instantly be daubed over with titles. ... It is 
proposed to print an edition in this city [Phila.] . . . What is very 
unusual, it has been published entire in a newspaper in this city, 
and, I believe, read by many people who were never in the whole 
course of their lives in the inside of a church.” 

2 Independent Chronicle, Jan. 15, 1795. Friends to the Clergy and 
Enemies to Ecclesiastic Presumption were much in evidence for 
several weeks in the columns of the Chronicle rebutting Osgood. 

3 Thanksgiving sermon, 1795, on “The Nature and Manner of 
giving Thanks to God, illustrated.” I have examined a score or 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 273 

Another ground of hostility to the Revolution was the 
character of some of its doctrines, which were unaccept¬ 
able to many conservative Americans, particularly the doc¬ 
trine of equality. Of course it was just this doctrine more 
than any other that won it friends here; it was just this 
sentiment that appealed so strongly to numbers of Ameri¬ 
cans, plunging them into the extraordinary excesses of en¬ 
thusiasm and imitation which have already been described. 
But as this doctrine came to stand forth more sharply and 
conspicuously as one of the great aspirations of the Revolu¬ 
tion, as its most significant and striking issue, it operated 
no less distinctly as a force of repulsion. Many men could 
view with pleasure a reformation in France along very lib¬ 
eral lines, would have been glad indeed to see a consti¬ 
tutional form of government replace permanently the 
arbitrary government of the Old Regime. But with Rous¬ 
seau, despite their own Declaration of Independence, they 


more of these political sermons, delivered mostly in 1794 and 1795. 
They reveal the same points of view and the same dogmatism as 
most of the other utterances of the time, differing from them only in 
the Biblical character of many of the phrases and in many curious 
and entertaining examples of exegesis. One of the fairest and 
sanest of them is that delivered by Jedediah Morse in Charlestown, 
Feb. 19, 1795, on “ The Present Situation of other Nations of the 
World Contrasted with Our Own.” 

One who enjoyed a very high reputation as a pulpit orator at 
this time was William Linn, pastor of a Dutch Reformed Church 
in New York. At the beginning he was a warm partisan of the 
French Revolution, as was shown in a sermon preached before the 
Tammany Society on the Fourth of July, 1791, in which he plunged 
into a glorification of the movement and a denunciation of its 
opponents, especially Edmund Burke (“ The British orator, though 
he sublimely rave, he raves in vain. No force of genius, no bril¬ 
liancy of fancy, and no ornament of language can support his 
wretched cause. . . . The Revolution in France is great, is aston¬ 
ishing, is glorious”). Even as late as 1794 he published a series of 
sermons on The Signs of the Times, the delivery of which created 
much opposition, as well as much enthusiasm, by reason of their 
approval of the Revolution. A few years later, however, he de¬ 
nounced it, having been alienated by the infidelity and anarchy 
that seemed to grow out of it. Duyckinck: Cyclopaedia of Amer¬ 
ican Literature, I, 326-327. 



274 


The French Revolution. 


would not for a moment parley. Equal they believed men 
should be before the law, and that was all. Equality, as it 
seemed to be regarded in France, they considered arrant 
nonsense, just as completely and emphatically contradicted 
by nature as its apostles held it to be affirmed. This was 
one of the points in Hamilton’s indictment of the Revolu¬ 
tion. Wise and good men, he says, took the lead in reveal¬ 
ing to the world the odious character of the old despotism, 
in showing forth the advantages to be expected from a 
more moderate government, in which the individual should 
enjoy a greater liberty, should have a freer room for the 
play of his own ambitions. Then came the “ fanatics in 
political science,” who have since exaggerated and per¬ 
verted their doctrines. “ Theories of government unsuited 
to the nature of man, miscalculating the force of his pas¬ 
sions, disregarding the lessons of experimental wisdom, 
have been projected and recommended. These have every¬ 
where attracted sectaries, and everywhere the fabric of 
government has been in different degrees undermined.” 1 
Gouverneur Morris lashed this doctrine with his most in¬ 
cisive and mordant sarcasm. “ What folly is it,” exclaimed 
caustic Chauncey Goodrich of Connecticut, “ that has set 
the whole world agog to be all equal to French barbers! ” 
“ It must have its run, and the anti-feds will catch at it to aid 
their mischievous purposes. I believe it is not best to let 
it pass without remark, and before long the authors of 
entire equality will show the world the danger of their wild 
rant.” 2 “ By the law of nature,” wrote John Adams in con¬ 

tempt of this doctrine, “ all men are men and not angels— 
men and not lions—men and not whales—men and not 
eagles—that is, they are all of the same species. And this 
is the most that the equality of nature amounts to. But man 
differs by nature from man almost as much as man from 
beast. The equality of nature is moral and political only 
and means that all men are independent. But a physical 


1 Lodge’s Hamilton, VII, 374-377. 

2 Gibbs’ Memoirs, I., 88. Goodrich to Wolcott, Feb. 17, 1793. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


275 


inequality, an intellectual inequality of the most serious kind 
is established unchangeably by the Author of nature; and 
society has a right to establish any other inequalities it may 
judge necessary for its good.” 1 

Thus the doctrine of equality as preached so fervently by 
the fiery French, was a hard and impossible teaching for 
many Americans of the eighteenth century. 

As the Revolution proceeded and the fierce rivalry of the 
different factions increased in intensity, many Americans 
became alarmed lest the spirit of faction and discord should 
leap beyond all restraints here. That this was the inevitable 
issue of the principles proclaimed in France seemed to be 
shown by her daily history. That those ardent admirers 
of hers in this country, with their constant laudation and 
attempted introduction of French principles, would bring 
along the demon goddess herself, was the sincere fear of 
many of the ablest men of the time. It was against the 
spirit of faction that the Hartford Wits directed many of 
their most malignant shafts. It was against this unlovely 
disturber of the peace that Robert Treat Paine hurled his 
coarse but pungent sarcasms, and Noah Webster wrote the 
famous pamphlet to which I have already referred and for 
which the men of his way of thinking were sincerely grate¬ 
ful. 2 “ The most important truth suggested by the foregoing 
remarks is,” says Webster at the close of his pamphlet, 
“ that party spirit is the source of faction, and faction is 
death to the existing government.” This is the principal 
danger to which our government is exposed. “ Americans! 
be not deluded. In seeking liberty France has gone beyond 


1 Life of John Adams, by J. Q. Adams, Lippincott, 1871, II, 185- 
189; Letter to Mrs. Adams, December 19, 1793. 

2 Wolcott, Jr., to Noah Webster. Gibbs, I, 134, May 3, 1794: 
“ I acknowledge your favor of the 20th of April, with the enclosed 
pamphlet, which I have perused with much satisfaction. It is 
precisely the thing which I have long wished to be furnished, and 
will eminently serve to fix the public opinion on national principles 
and to tranquillize those passions which have threatened the peace 
of this country.” 



276 


The French Revolution . 


her. You, my countrymen, if you love liberty, adhere to 
your constitution of government. The moment you quit 
that sheet-anchor you are afloat among the surges of passion 
and the rocks of error, threatened every moment with ship¬ 
wreck. Heaven grant that while Europe is agitated with 
a violent tempest in which palaces are shaken and thrones 
tottering to their base, the republican government of Amer¬ 
ica, in which liberty and the rights of man are embarked, 
fortunately anchored at an immense distance on the margin 
of the gale, may be enabled to ride out the storm and land 
us safely on the shores of peace and political tranquillity.” 1 
The fervor of this exordium shows the strength of the anx¬ 
iety behind it. It is impossible to read the utterances of the 
day without having borne in upon you in a hundred ways 
the fact that very many Americans regarded the so-called 
French principles as utterly subversive of all social and 
political order, and the further fact that they could find no 
terms fierce enough with which to properly denounce those 
who were seeking to introduce those methods here. Jere¬ 
miah Smith gives evidence of this. “ I am sorry,” he writes, 
“that French politics gain ground with you. They are my 
utter abhorrence. I almost hate the name of a Frenchman. 
They have opened some leaves in the volume of human 
nature that I never believed were in the book. They have 
done the cause of liberty an irreparable injury. I do not 
wish them success. Their principles are hostile to all gov¬ 
ernment, even ours, which is certainly the best.” 2 George 
Cabot declared that French principles would “ destroy us 
as a society”; that they were “more to be dreaded in a 
moral view than a thousand yellow fevers in a physical.” 3 
Wolcott, Sr., wrote to Wolcott, Jr., expressing the hope 
that France would not get possession of New Orleans, for 
“ there is no nation in the universe whose neighborhood we 


1 Webster, The Revolution in France, 71-72. 

2 Morison. Life of Jeremiah Smith, 61-62, Feb. 12, 1794. 

3 Lodge. Life and Letters of George Cabot, 78, March 10, 1794. 



Opinions of Americans at Home . 277 

ought equally to detest/’ 1 and the son, responding cordially 
to the parental thought, declared without hesitation that 
he had “ rather know that the United States were to be 
erased from existence than infected with the French prin¬ 
ciples,” 2 3 * * * * a remark as wise and moderate as that wherein 
Jefferson expressed a readiness to see the entire population 
of every country wiped out, reserving, however, one Adam 
and one Eve, if thereby the precious boon of liberty might 
be preserved. Wisdom and moderation were apparently 
rare among either Jews or Gentiles at that troublous time. 8 

And another reason why many Americans turned from 
the Revolution was “ its despicable attention to trifles.” 
These are the words of Noah Webster, and they form one 
of the three capital charges in his arraignment. He can- 


1 Gibbs. Memoirs, I, 132. 

2 Gibbs. Memoirs, I, 133-134; also I, 136. 

3 This tendency to ascribe all our noisy party broils to the 

French is shown still further by a curious pamphlet called “ The 
Jacobin Looking Glass,” and published anonymously by “ A Friend 

to Rational Liberty ” (Worcester, 1795). The author attempts to 
trace the history of the opposition to the Government (synonymous 

in his view with “ faction ”) from the Revolution down through the 

Whiskey Insurrection. Opening with a truly startling statement. 
“ Fellow-citizens, I am averse to contention, especially in politicks,” 
he proceeds to belabor the democrats. They were men who, when 
the Government was founded, didn’t get offices, consequently 
“ their noses ” were “ put out of joint.” . . . “ In this situation did 
the sons of faction remain, like the poor invalid at the pool wait¬ 
ing for the troubling of the waters, when in came the angel and that 
angel was Genet. This evil genius quickly troubled the waters, 
and in they leaped, like Cerberus in the Styx, to quench their 
thirst with blood and charge their tongues with poison.” . . . 
“ Now you hear of nothing but constitutional and democratick societies. 
From New Hampshire to Georgia the Genetines lay the eggs and 
hatch sedition .” If they could have their way, says this rather 
typical pamphleteer, the guillotine would be an ordinary sight in 
America, “ of which every one not of their party would soon feel 
the effects.” . . . Now, Americans, beware of these men. “ Give 
them but power and see the effect. America, that peaceful habi¬ 
tation of man, would soon be drenched with the blood of her 
favorite sons. War is their element and peace their bane. But, 
my friends, keep aloof from such men; beware of those tooting 
gentry, who disturb the abodes of domestick happiness with their 

midnight omens.” 




278 


The French Revolution. 


didly admits that much of the violence of the Revolution 
may be attributed to the opposititon of despotic powers 
whose aims are unjustifiable. “ But there are some pro¬ 
ceedings of the present convention,” says he, “ which admit 
of no excuse but a political insanity, a wild enthusiasm, 
violent and irregular, which magnifies a mole-hill into a 
mountain, and mistakes a shadow for a giant/’ “ The con¬ 
vention,” he adds, “ in their zeal for equalizing men have, 
with all their exalted reason, condescended to the puerilities 
of legislating even upon names.” That they should abolish 
titles of distinction along with the privileges of the different 
orders was natural, but such titles as “ Monsieur ” and 
“ Madame ” are literally terms of equality, not of distinction. 
Yet these titles, which, in Webster’s words, had “no more 
connection with Government than the chattering of birds,” 
became the subject of grave legislative discussion, and their 
use was officially forbidden. “ The cause of the French 
nation,” says he, “is the noblest ever undertaken by men; 
it was necessary; it was just,” and as long as the legislators 
of France confined themselves to the correction of real 
evils they were admirable, “ the most respectable of re¬ 
formers,” but when they stooped to legislate upon trifles 
they became contemptible. “ What shall we say,” he adds, 
“ to the legislature of a great nation waging a serious war 
with mere names, pictures, dress, and statues? Is this also 
necessary to the support of liberty? There is something 
in this part of the legislative proceedings that unites the 
littleness of boys with the barbarity of Goths.” 1 

CONCLUSION. 

But the opposition, though growing in numbers, in clear¬ 
ness of perception and in precision of purpose, was very, 
very far from silencing the enthusiasm for France which 
had burst forth with a spontaneity testifying to the frank 
honesty of the motives behind it, and which was to burst 


1 Webster. The Revolution in France, 39. 





Opinions of Americans at Home. 279 

forth again and again in the months that were to come. 
Into the details of these later events we do not need to 
enter with the same fulness of treatment meted out to the 
former. They add little that is new either in the way of 
description or explanation. Suffice it to say that no occa¬ 
sion for expressing interest in the welfare of France slipped 
by without calling forth the expression. There was the 
debate on Madison’s Resolutions in the Congress of 1794, 
in which the national antipathy to Great Britain, the na¬ 
tional fondness for France, were arrayed as party forces. 
These two countries were pitted against each other in the 
debate. It was urged that the resolutions ought to pass as 
an expression of our gratitude to France for her timely 
aid in critical days gone by. To which it was retorted that 
generosity and gratitude were more at home in heaven than 
on earth; that though they might be discovered now and 
then determining the relations of individuals, they were 
rarely decisive in those of nation with nation. Further¬ 
more, had not confession been made in the French con¬ 
vention that the assistance had been rendered not so much 
out of love to us as out of hatred of England and a desire 
to humiliate a proud and dangerous rival. The similarity 
of principles and institutions was urged as a reason for 
drawing the two republics together. This similarity did not 
appear so evident to others. ‘‘The French republic was 
one and indivisible; ours consisted of sovereign states, 
having extensive and important local jurisdictions and a 
diversity of laws and interests. Federalism was treason in 
France; consolidation was treason here. The French exec¬ 
utive was plural, and their legislature a single body— 
arrangements counter to the practice of almost all the states 
and to the provisions of the Federal Constitution. Was 
every part of the United States in a condition to extend the 
idea of equality to the same length it had been carried in 
France? Might not the conflagrations, the bloody scenes 
of St. Domingo be exhibited in that case on our own 
peaceful shores?” “The French were a brave, generous, 


280 


The French Revolution . 


enlightened nation,” said one speaker. “They had per¬ 
formed the most brilliant achievements recorded in history. 
They had broken the chains of despotism, had obliterated 
hierarchical and feudal tyranny, and had exercised the power 
belonging to all nations of establishing a government of 
their own.” They deserved to be happy under it, and 
would to God they might be. But if any parallel was to be 
drawn between our government and that of any nation 
of Europe, it was “ the British constitution which presented 
the most numuerous points of resemblance.” This associa¬ 
tion of the American government with that of Great Britain 
was very offensive to members of the House, several of 
whom exclaimed against it. “ It is enough for us,” said one 
of them, “ that the French Constitution has liberty for its 
basis.” The French and American governments agree in 
the fundamental principles of the consent of the people 
and equality of rights, while the fundamental principle of 
the British government is coercion, and its object a 
monopoly of rights. Whatever similarity there may be 
is one of form merely. Another said that if he had any 
prejudices they certainly were not in favor of England, but 
rather of the people with whom she was at war. “ I can 
never forget that probably by them we exist as a nation. 
France is the place of my fathers’ sepulchres. No man 
more ardently wishes liberty and happiness to the French 
nation. No man, it is but just to add, more sincerely 
laments that spasm of patriotism which now convulses the 
body politic of France and greatly hazards the cause of 
freedom. But we ought not to suffer a torrent of feeling 
to sweep us from our post. We are neither Britons nor 
Frenchmen, but Americans, the representatives of Ameri¬ 
cans, the guardians of their interests.” 1 

In other debates in this and succeeding years the Revo¬ 
lution made itself felt either in a half-suppressed way or 
openly. Immigration becoming much greater than ever 

1 Quotations are from Hildreth's account of the debates, IV, 
459 - 475 * 





Opinions of Americans at Home . 281 

before, a new naturalization law was brought forward at the 
close of the year 1794. Both Federalists and Democrats 
were willing to make naturalization more difficult, the 
former because of their fear of foreign democrats, the latter 
because of their fear of foreign aristocrats. One of the 
provisions of the law was that a citizen of a foreign state 
seeking naturalization here must not only renounce alle¬ 
giance to the foreign state, but if he bore any title of no¬ 
bility, must renounce that also. The Federalists then en¬ 
quired sarcastically, why require the renunciation of a mere 
title which had no privileges attached? Why not, said 
Dexter of Massachusetts, require the new citizen to 
renounce his membership in the Jacobin Club should he 
happen to be a member? Why not require him to renounce 
the Pope? “ Is not priestcraft quite as dangerous as aris¬ 
tocracy?” On the other hand it was retorted that titles 
of nobility were mere names, and that if a man were not 
willing to sacrifice that much for the inestimable boon of 
becoming a citizen of the United States he was not worthy 
of it. The Democrats carried the day and the introduction 
of titles in America was again defeated. 

References were made to the Revolution on other occa¬ 
sions, when the question of the San Domingo refugees 
was before Congress, and especially when discussion raged 
for months over the Jay Treaty. And again in 1795, when 
a communication was laid before it from the members of the 
Committee of Public Safety respecting the new metric sys¬ 
tem of weights and measures and urging our adoption of it. 
The Senate ordered the printing of three hundred copies 
of the communication for the use of the members. 1 Here 
the matter was dropped; no further notice was ever taken of 
it. The Federalists pronounced the documents extremely 
curious, as showing very clearly how sanguine the French 
were in their hopes of remodeling everything in these 
States, and expressed their joy that the proposition had not 


1 Annals of Congress, Jan. 8 and 9, 1795. 




282 


The French Revolution. 


conje a year earlier, when most probably an earnest attempt 
would have been made to “ frenchify ” our customs in one 
more particular. 1 

The attempts of the French in the art of constitution¬ 
making also commanded the interested attention of the 
Americans. The first constitution they had, as a rule, ap¬ 
proved, as we have seen. It created a constitutional mon¬ 
archy where formerly had been an absolute one. The 
short-lived Constitution of ’93 was printed in full in many 
of the papers and much commented upon. “ You will in 
this outline,” wrote Oliver Wolcott, “ see that the poor 
Frenchmen have much to suffer before they settle their 
affairs. An executive with seven heads, a judiciary chosen 
by the people at large, and a right reserved to each citizen 
to propose new or the repeal of existing laws, will produce 
more friction than can easily be overcome. Yet in this 
country men are sworn to praise this plan in derogation of 
our own Constitution. May God preserve us from the 
effects of such fanaticism.” 2 Indeed, this was quite true. 
Among other excellencies of the new document the avoid¬ 
ance of a single executive was mentioned, for does not that 
lead naturally to despotism? 3 But it was the Constitution 
of ’95 that enjoyed the greatest favor here. Indeed, by this 
time Frenchmen were showing a tendency to learn from 
experience, and once more our own exeperience seemed to 
be counting for something with them. 

The republican journals hailed the new instrument of 
government with extravagant praise. The Aurora declared 
that it secured to the French every great feature of democ¬ 
racy which the warmest republican could wish, and ex¬ 
pressed the hope that it would put the seal of perpetuity 
upon the work of the Revolution. It also added that it was 
free from many of the defects which were becoming daily 
more and more apparent in our Federal Constitution. 4 The 

1 Peter Porcupine’s Works, II, 229. 2 Gibbs. Memoirs, I, 92. 

3 Vermont Gazette, Nov. 15, 1793. Quotation from New York 

Journal. 4 Bache’s General Advertiser and Aurora, Aug. 27, 1795. 




Opinions of Americans at Home. 


283 


Independent Chronicle pronounced it “ a most beautiful 
monument of political architecture,” 1 “ the noblest work, 
the best guarded against the abuse of power, and in all 
respects the freest national government in the world,” 2 
“ the most perfect model ” ever adopted by any nation. 
“ It comprehends all the beauties and excellences of our 
own in their full lustre. But it avoids its defects.” 1 “ Study 
it, ye Americans, it may become necessary to new-model 
your own.” 3 Even the Federalists seemed disposed to 
approve. The Federal Orrery called attention to points of 
resemblance to our Constitution and to two great abuses 
in French government that would be corrected, the sharp 
separation of the executive, legislative and judicial depart¬ 
ments, in place of their former consolidation, and the erec¬ 
tion of a second chamber to serve as a check on the hitherto 
unlimited sovereignty of the Lower House. True, the ex¬ 
ecutive is its weak point. It ought not to be shared by the 
legislature, nor ought it to be plural; but this latter needs 
“ no antidote but experience.” 4 And Noah Webster men¬ 
tioned in the Minerva with evident pleasure the fact that 
Boissy d’Anglas, in a report preliminary to the new consti¬ 
tution, had called John Adams, the author of the Defense 
of the Constitutions, a book loathed by the Democrats, 
one of the greatest modern writers on government. 5 * * 

And so the great Revolution swept on, admired and de¬ 
nounced with fervor by observers three thousand miles away. 
With every new series of republican victories in France came 
a new series of dinners in America 'extolling the same. 8 
There was the same enthusiasm, the same radiant outlook, 
the same ardor for the republican cause. But there were 
new elements as well. France, having been reborn a 


1 Independent Chronicle, Sept. 7, 1795. 

2 Oct. 22, 1795 . 3 Sept. 3, 1795. 

4 Federal Orrery, Aug. 20 and Aug. 24, 1795. 

5 Minerva, Nov. 4, 1795. 

* Independent Chronicle, April 20, 1795, Oct. 15, 1795, July 7 

and 11, 1796. Federal Orrery, June 15, July 16 and 20, and Sept. 

24, 1795, Oct. 20, 1796. 



284 


The French Revolution. 


republic, begot one of her own in turn, the Batavian, 
whose advent was duly celebrated. “ The bells have rung 
this morning a merry peal of joy,” writes James Sullivan 
from Portsmouth, N. H., to his friend, Governor Samuel 
Adams; “ salutes have been fired from the artillery, and the 
gentlemen of the town are repairing to a civic feast, served 
up at the town hall, to celebrate the revolution in the 
Netherlands, and the accession of an important republic to 
the true interests of mankind. I shall partake of this feast 
among my old friends and acquaintances with a cheerful 
readiness, and leave you to conjecture the degree of happi¬ 
ness which I shall possess .” 1 Henceforth there were toasts 
to “ Our Sister Republics, France and Holland,” to “ The 
Triune Republic of America, France and Holland,” 2 and 
there was much talk about this globe becoming “ one uni¬ 
versal republic.” 

Again the dissenters brought forth their favorite weapon 
of ridicule. They organized mock celebrations, aiming to 
parody the tendency of the republicans to range the wide 
world for subjects for their thought, and at these mock 
celebrations mock toasts were drunk to “ The King of Cor¬ 
sica/’ to “ The Memory of Caligula and his Consular 
Horse,” to “ The Dey of Algiers and Success to Piracy,” 
to “ Judge Green of Bermuda,” to “ The South Sea Bubble,” 
to “ Sterling Despotism throughout the World,” to “ Our 
Noble Selves .” 3 

There was another scene in Congress. The two great 
republics exchanged flags. The convention had voted to 
have the French and American colors suspended inter¬ 
twined in their assembly hall, and Monroe had taken it 
upon himself to send them ours in the name of the Ameri¬ 
can people. In return the Committee of Public Safety 
ordered the French flag to be sent to the Congress of the 
United States. It was presented to Washington on New 

1 Amory, Life of James Sullivan, I, 299-300. 

2 Federal Orrery, June 15 and July 6, 1795. 

3 Minerva, June 20, 1795. 





Opinions of Americans at Home. 


285 


Year’s Day, 1796, by the French ambassador. The Presi¬ 
dent delivered an unusually fervid speech of thanks, ren¬ 
dered so, perhaps, by the desire to allay our growing 
troubles with France. 1 Transmitted to Congress, it was 
voted to deposit the flag in the “ archives ” of the nation, 
and not in view as the French no doubt intended it should 
be. A week later the French minister wrote a letter of 
complaint to the Secretary of State that the flag had been 
so “ shut up,” and said that this disposal of it would be 
regarded by his countrymen as a mark of indifference or 
contempt, and demanded that it be released from its dun¬ 
geon and displayed in the House of Representatives. But 
Timothy Pickering was then Secretary of State, a man little 
disposed to lend himself to the exaltation of the French 
Revolution in any form. The flag remained shut up. 2 

But the time for enthusiasm for France was well-nigh 
spent. Diplomatic difficulties were fast leading toward a 
rupture. France was disposed to deal summarily with this 
ungrateful republic, so fair of speech, so wanting in action. 
The neutrality proclamation had been a severe blow. The 
Jay treaty was another cause of estrangement. On our side 
Monroe was censured by the home Government for com¬ 
promising his country too much with the French. He 
was recalled, and Charles C. Pinckney was appointed his 
successor, but was formally notified that neither he nor any 
other minister would be received from the United States 
until the grievances of which France complained were 
redressed, and it was hinted that neutral commerce might 
be treated rather differently in the future. The problem 
was rapidly being compounded with which doughty John 
Adams was to wrestle mightily, into a discussion of which 
it is no purpose of ours to enter. 

But in that summer of 1796 there was a momentary 
revival of methods that had for some time been left in abey¬ 
ance. The French minister, Adet, like his more famous 


1 Wait’s State Papers and Publick Documents of the United 

States, II, 95-97. 2 William Sullivan, Familiar Letters, 103. 



286 The French Revolution. 

predecessor, Genet, resorted to rhetoric and opened direct 
communication with the people. He issued the famous 
“ cockade ” proclamation, calling upon all Frenchmen resi¬ 
dent in America to wear the tri-colored cockade, “ the sym¬ 
bol of a liberty, the fruit of eight years’ toils and five years’ 
victories.” To this call not only the exiles, but many 
Americans also, who wished thus to testify to their devotion 
to the French cause, responded. Soon in another mani¬ 
festo he called upon the American people to fulfil their 
treaty obligations like men of honor. “ When Europe rose 
up against the republic at its birth and menaced it with all 
the horrors of famine,” runs this product of true revolu¬ 
tionary diplomacy, “when on every side the French could 
not calculate on any but enemies, their thoughts turned 
toward America, and a sweet sentiment then mingled itself 
with those proud feelings which the presence of danger and 
the desire of repelling it produced in their hearts. In Amer¬ 
ica they saw friends. Those who went to brave tempests 
and death upon the ocean forgot all dangers in order to 
indulge the hope of visiting that American continent, 
where, for the first time, the French colors had been dis¬ 
played in favor of liberty. Under the guarantee of the law 
of nations, under the protecting shade of a solemn treaty, 
they expected to find in the ports of the United States an 
asylum as sure as at home; they thought, if I may use the 
expression, there to find a second country. The French 
government thought as they did. Oh, hope worthy of a 
faithful people, how hast thou been deceived! So far from 
offering the French the succors which friendship might have 
given without compromitting itself, the American govern¬ 
ment in this respect violated the obligation of treaties.” 

Then follows a list of these alleged violations from 1793 
down. Then the announcement of the suspension of diplo¬ 
matic relations “ until the government should return to 
sentiments and measures more conformable to the interests 
of the alliance and the sworn friendship between the two 
nations.” Then comes a most harrowing appeal to Ameri- 


Opinions of Americans at Home. 287 

cans, by all the memories of their glorious struggles in com¬ 
mon against the hated Britons, to recall the government to 
itself. “Alas! the soldiers who fell under the sword of the 
Britons are not yet reduced to dust; the laborer in turning 
up his fields still draws from the bosom of the earth their 
whitened bones, while the plowman, with tears of tender¬ 
ness and gratitude, still recollects that his fields, now cov¬ 
ered with rich harvests, have been moistened with French 
blood; while everything around the inhabitants of this 
country animates them to speak of the tyranny of Great 
Britain and of the generosity of Frenchmen. . . . O Ameri¬ 
cans! covered with noble scars! O! you who have so often 
flown to death and to victory with French soldiers! . . . 
Let your government return to itself and you will still find in 
Frenchmen faithful friends and generous allies!” 

This remarkable appeal was understood to be an effort 
to influence the Presidential election of 1796 in favor of 
Jefferson. A “ French President,” exclaimed the Feder¬ 
alists, is what our republicans would give us. This is what 
the French Revolution, mixing in our affairs, will lead us to. 

It is not surprising, in view of all these extraordinary 
evidences of enthusiasm for a foreign people with which 
the preceding pages abound, that Washington should warn 
the American people most earnestly in his Farewell Ad¬ 
dress against “ permanent, inveterate antipathies against 
particular nations and passionate attachments for others,” 
and should say “ that such an attachment of a small or weak 
towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to 
be the satellite of the latter”; that “against the insidious 
wiles of foreign influence the jealousy of a free people ought 
to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove 
that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of 
republican government.” 

Thus the two nations were drifting apart into open hos¬ 
tility and that bond of sympathetic attachment was about 
to be snapped asunder because America did not wish to 
apologize for her Neutrality Proclamation and her Jay 


288 


The French Revolution . 


Treaty and all that grew out of them; because she, whose 
chief boast was her independence, did not wish to become 
a “ poor little twinkling star ” hiding its head “ at the rays 
of the Grande Repnblique Frangaise.” 1 Finally the gross 
insults of the Directory heaped upon our commissioners 
dried up at once the fountains of admiration and devotion 
that had flowed so freely in the past and turned friendship 
into enmity. But the issue henceforth was to be a different 
one. The question was no longer one of the French Revo¬ 
lution as a movement apart by itself, a movement to be 
admired or denounced according to one’s taste. It was one 
of national pride and resentment and determination. And 
into this new question we will not go. 

Meanwhile, certain stray items were finding their way 
into the papers, faintly foreshadowing a new chapter in the 
history of the world. The army of Italy was doing won¬ 
derful things, so wonderful that the citizens of New York 
must needs have a banquet and celebrate. “ General Buon¬ 
aparte and the victorious army of Italy! May their suc¬ 
cesses at the gates of Rome be extended to the Tagus,” was 
a sentiment that called forth nine cheers. 2 The Indepen¬ 
dent Chronicle pronounced Bonaparte’s letters to his army 
“ beautiful ” and his proclamations as “ written in the style 
of Flannibal.” It declared that he stood “ at this awful 
crisis in the exalted attitude of a conqueror dispensing jus¬ 
tice and the blessings of liberty to a prostrate and admiring 
world”; and soon it was announcing that the most cele¬ 
brated statues which once embellished republican Athens 
and republican Rome would at last “ quit the seat of super¬ 
stition and return to the capitol of a free republic.” 3 

The French Revolution was for several years, strangely 
enough, the great dominant fact in American political life. 
It furnished issues, watchwords and leaders, and was an 
important agent in determining the alignment and con¬ 
struction of parties. That our foreign policy should be 


1 Cobbett. Works, IV, 268. 2 Federal Orrery. 

3 Independent Chronicle, Aug. 22, Aug. 25, Dec. 19, 1796. 




Opinions of Americans at Home . 289 

determined largely by foreign politics is easily understood. 
As one of the family of nations, we were inevitably drawn 
into the family broils. And this would naturally react upon 
the local politics. But this general fact does not at all 
explain the remarkable intensity of the interest in the Revo¬ 
lution that prevailed in America between 1789 and 1797, 
when estrangement from France gave it a rough check, 
though by no means a death-blow. Why was it that a revo¬ 
lution three thousand miles away pervaded every phase of 
American life, its politics, its literature, its pulpit utterances, 
its plays, its forms of social intercourse, developing here its 
own fanaticism and its own puerilities? Why were the des¬ 
tinies of the French Republic a source of such constant and 
intimate concern to multitudes of Americans, who seemed 
to regard French victories as their own, French customs 
as worthy of immediate and unfeigned imitation? Why did 
they reveal the same irritability and sensitiveness of mind 
that were in many cases so absurd and in many so little 
self-respecting? Why was it, too, that there was here a 
party of staunch and bitter conservatives, who became more 
and more staunch and more and more bitter, as the revo¬ 
lution in a foreign land went on; who regarded the whole 
movement as unhallowed and born of evil; while through 
all this acrimonious war of opinions, toward which no one 
in all the land was indifferent, there were heard notes of 
broadest idealism which sounded to many, no doubt, as 
strangely out of place, but which were freighted with the 
future? 

De Tocqueville’s remark recurs to mind. If we would 
study the French Revolution in the light of analogy we 
must compare it with religious rather than with other 
political revolutions. Religious revolutions, growing out 
of general abstract ideas, ideas that hold as true of the 
people of one country as of those of another, the relations of 
the individual toward his God and toward his fellow-men, 
have spread over wide areas, ignoring political or geo¬ 
graphical lines of demarcation; and the more abstract their 


290 


The French Revolution. 


teachings the more widely have they spread. Similarly, the 
French Revolution, growing out of and embodying general 
political ideas, held to be as applicable to one people as 
another, dealing with the citizen in the abstract, proclaim¬ 
ing his general privileges and duties in reference to political 
affairs, the Rights of Man in short, had the same power of 
fascination, of universal appeal, as the movements inspired 
by Mohammed or by Luther. 

“ It was by thus divesting itself of all that was peculiar 
to one race or time, and by reverting to natural principles 
of social order and government, that it became intelligible 
to all and susceptible of simultaneous imitation in a hundred 
different places. 

“ By seeming to tend rather to the regeneration of the 
human race than to the reform of France alone, it roused 
passions such as the most violent political revolutions have 
been incapable of awakening. It inspired proselytism and 
gave birth to propagandism, and hence assumed that quasi¬ 
religious character which so terrified those who saw it, or, 
rather, became a sort of new religion, imperfect it is true, 
without God, worship, or future life, but still able, like 
Islamism, to cover the earth with its soldiers, its apostles, 
and its martyrs.” 

The remark of the brilliant French writer is both striking 
and true. One of the most broadly patent characteristics 
of the Revolution was its cosmopolitanism, shown both by 
its principles, many of which were general, fundamental, 
international, and by the fact that it rallied about it in every 
country devoted and enthusiastic defenders who were capti¬ 
vated by its message of help and hope. Nowhere is this 
general feature of the Revolution, as a universal faith, a 
temper of mind, a way of looking at things, shown in higher 
relief than in America, for here was a country that had 
thrown off almost all the mediaeval incumbrances or anom¬ 
alies that gave to the Revolution in Europe its immediate 
provocation and its tremendous impetus. Yet this country, 
where life was, on the whole, simple, natural, marked by 


Opinions of Americans at Horne. 291 

few abuses, where political rights were widely diffused and 
the political sense ingrained, was, unexpectedly enough, 
moved through and through by a revolution that was 
a-inaking far away. 

Thus the general programme and promise of the Revo¬ 
lution were such as would naturally appeal to Americans. 
But there were other and special reasons that explain the 
fervor of their passion. First, there was the natural fond¬ 
ness of Americans for Frenchmen, which had its historic 
justification. The sentiment of gratitude to a nation that 
had aided us in our dire necessity was deeply lodged in the 
hearts of the American people. Regarding this matter dis¬ 
passionately, nothing could be more natural than the enthu¬ 
siasm that had its tap-root in such a sentiment, and in 
ordinary times and within proper limits nothing could be 
more honorable or more healthy. Most of the utterances 
of these years bear witness to the vitality and power of this 
belief, that to France we owed a debt of appreciation that 
could never be paid. The Federalists might endeavor to 
show that the French had had their own purposes in that 
alliance, and that they were not the unselfish, chivalrous, 
lofty persons represented by the popular legend. But the 
great mass of the American people instinctively rejected 
this unflattering view of the motives of our allies and it 
never made much impression. Was not the rare, deep 
friendship of Washington and Lafayette typical of the rela¬ 
tions of the two nations? Did not that reveal far more con¬ 
vincingly than any ingenious and subtle arguments of 
soured partisans, the real motives that had led Frenchmen 
to pour out their blood and spend their treasure in a far-off 
wilderness? In whatever part of America the Duke de 
Larochefoucauld might happen to be he was instantly made 
to feel the high esteem in which his countrymen were held. 
To be sure, he met men enough everywhere who expressed 
a deep abhorrence of the crimes of the Revolution, deplored 
the death of Louis, denounced Robespierre and his asso¬ 
ciates as “the banditti of France/' yet who, minimizing 


292 


The French Revolution . 


these repellent features, expressed a warm attachment to 
that nation. “ If an American were to fight against a 
Frenchman, that would be like fighting against his father,” « 
was a sentiment once addressed to him and repeated in other 
forms not infrequently. 

This generous feeling of national gratitude was only 
heightened by another, the feeling of rankling resentment 
against Great Britain, which stood forth now as the worst 
enemy of our best friend. The old feeling, which had per¬ 
haps been dying down a little since the peace, blazed up 
once more, nor did England do aught to allay it. In a 
war between that country and France, what anti-federalist 
could doubt where justice lay and where sympathy should 
be shown? He argued that the former was at the head of a 
desperate coalition, pledged to stamp out free government 
in a land whose people were striving for it, and did not 
Americans have enough reason to know that George III. 
was an old tyrant anyway? No wonder, then, that when 
these two tremendous passions were inflamed to a quivering 
heat and thrown into the ordinary party strife of the day, 
that party strife should become mad and hysterical. All 
the more resplendent, consequently, was the statesmanship 
of Washington in dealing with so embarrassing a situation. 

Other considerations, too, fanned the flame. Were not 
the French making the first practical and effective assertion 
of democratic principles in Europe? Were not their inter¬ 
ests identical with ours? Leaving all talk of duty aside, 
did not mere consistency, mere loyalty to our own most 
cherished principles, demand that we approve those who 
had aided us to become free and who were now struggling 
to become so themselves? The Federalists might deny that 
there was any similarity between the two revolutions; but 
did their denial establish the fact? Did not all the world 
know, did not Frenchmen themselves proclaim, that they 
had lighted their torches at our altars? Were they not do¬ 
ing precisely what we had done, aiming at their own eleva¬ 
tion, believing that greater liberty means richer personal 


Opinions of Americans at Home. 


293 


development. Was not—and here the vision widened and 
became more entrancing—was not the Old World, as a 
whole, simply following the example of the New; had not a 
political millennium commenced whose sway was to be uni¬ 
versal; and were not the gallant French the ones destined to 
bring this sublime achievement to pass? The truth is that 
the imagination of the American people had been mightily 
aroused and was working under the stress of ideas of extra¬ 
ordinary and overwhelming power. 1 And this explains, as 
it also condones to some extent, many of the absurdities 
and puerilities that have been described above. 

There was, of course, another side to all this. The Fed¬ 
eralists felt no affinity with the hydras, the mammoths and 
kites upon whom the Republicans so often poured out the 
vials of unspeakable scorn. They were no apologists for 
despotism. “ Some men were Federalists,” says Col. Hig- 
ginson, “because they were high-minded; others because 
they were narrow-minded”; and in this neat description of 
their character we have a key to their position on many 
public questions. At the outset they, like all other Ameri¬ 
cans, hailed the Revolution as a bow of promise, but for 
them the bow soon disappeared, swallowed up in the low¬ 
ering darkness of the gathering night, while for the Repub¬ 
licans it did not so speedily vanish. It was not simply a 
question as to who favored liberty and who did not. Each 
side believed that American liberty was at stake, and that 
it alone was its defender. The Republicans believed either 
that the monarchs of Europe, having crushed out liberty 
there, as they would if they should conquer France, would 
then proceed to stamp it out here, so hateful would the 
sight of it be to them anywhere and so dangerous; or that a 
defeat in Europe meant at least a rebuff here, for they held 
that the Federalists would go to any reactionary length in 
exploiting such a catastrophe, for had not their high pontiff, 
Jefferson, declared in terms unequivocal that the country 


1 See Freneau’s Hymn to Liberty, delivered at Monmouth, 1795. 
Duyckinck: Cyclopaedia of American Literature, I, 331. 



294 


The French Revolution. 


was “ galloping fast into monarchy,” driven thither by the 
odious “ monocrats ”? The Federalists, on the other hand, 
came to believe sincerely that only by combating French 
principles could American liberties be preserved; that 
liberty, as proclaimed by Frenchmen, with all its miserable 
trumpery of clubs and poles and red caps, was but a delu¬ 
sion and a sham. The government they themselves had 
created and were now administering was imperiled, they 
believed, by principles in their very essence subversive of 
all government and preached by men who, foiled once in 
their effort to prevent its erection, were now bent upon its 
overthrow. Where, they asked, is there any trace of true 
liberty in the proceedings of Frenchmen since 1791? Have 
they not quickly overthrown their own creation, the Con¬ 
stitution of 1789? Does not liberty imply such a thing as 
stability? Have they not murdered their King and Queen 
and multitudes of the higher classes? If this be liberty, its 
superiority to anarchy is not apparent. Has not the French 
Republic, after proclaiming that it makes for peace, that it 
will have nothing to do with conquest, proceeded at once 
to annex the Netherlands? If this be liberty, at any rate it 
isn’t honesty. Have not the French abolished Christianity; 
have they not erected Reason into a religion and gone to 
Notre Dame to worship a common prostitute as its goddess? 
If this be liberty, it surely isn’t decency. 

From such a conception of liberty as this the Federalists 
shrank back with horror. Those who were high-minded 
and those who were narrow-minded were alike alarmed. 
They had developed order out of anarchy with infinite diffi¬ 
culty. Was it only that anarchy might speedily swallow it 
up once more? Surely that would be the result if the 
French principles gained foothold here. As a matter of 
fact, what had the Revolution done for us? It had, said 
the Federalists, degraded our politics by placing loyalty to 
foreign attachments higher than loyalty to our own best 
judgment and interest; it had foisted clubs upon us 
whose chief object was to embarrass the government; whose 


Opinions of Americans at Home. 


295 


chief result was to render the popular mind discontented, 
suspicious, irritable and unstable; it had led one section of 
the country to the brink of treachery, 1 another to open 
insurrection; it had insulted our Government through its 
ministers Genet and Adet. The Federalists held that the 
intrusion of the French Revolution into American life had 
proved highly prejudicial to the interests of literature; that 
it had blighted the arts; 2 that it had greatly encouraged 
infidelity. 3 Believing all this, and much of it was true and 
much plausible, it was not astonishing that many Ameri¬ 
cans became inveterate opponents of a movement which 
they had at first greeted with favor and to which the majority 
of their fellow-countrymen remained loyal to the end. If 
the imagination of the Republicans had been aroused by it, 
none the less had the imagination of the Federalists. If the 
former peered far into the future, the latter saw deep into 
the present, understood the wonderfully complicated and 
delicate nature of human institutions, appreciated the value 

1 Genet’s schemes in Kentucky and the Mississippi valley. “ It 
is a singular fact that matters as remote as the Revolution in 
France should have greatly affected the political motives of this 
young commonwealth.” Shaler, Kentucky, p. 129. This signifi¬ 
cant episode is discussed at length by the historians of Kentucky, 
Collins, Marshall and others. 

2 “ In America the artful intrigues of French diplomatists and 
the blunders of the British government united to convert the 
whole American people into violent partisans of one or the other; 
to such a degree did this insanity prevail that the whole country 
seemed to be changed into one vast arena on which the two 
parties, forgetting their national character, were wasting their 
time, their thoughts, their energy, on this foreign quarrel. ... In 
such a state of things what hope remained for the arts? None— 
my great enterprise was blighted.” John Trumbull, Autobiog¬ 
raphy, 168-169. His great enterprise was the portrayal of the 
American Revolution, which required for its successful realization 
official support, which it could not get in such troublous times. 

3 William Ellery Channing entered Harvard in 1794. He has 
left this description of those days: “ College was never in a worse 
state than when I entered it. Society was passing through a most 
critical stage. The French Revolution had diseased the imagina¬ 
tion and unsettled the understanding of men everywhere. The old 
foundations of social order, loyalty, tradition, habit, reverence for 
antiquity, were everywhere shaken, if not subverted. The au- 



296 


The French Revolution. 


of what had been historically fashioned out of the experi¬ 
ence of the race, divined the necessity of preserving" these 
products of time, saw that pure theory should be held in 
check and not be let loose every little while to remodel 
radically the relations of man with man. The Federalists 
were strong because they stood for law, for order, and in 
this special case their position was all the stronger because, 
as Washington said of himself in his Farewell Address, their 
predominant motive was to endeavor to gain time to the 
country “ to settle and mature its yet recent institutions and 
to progress without interruption to that degree of strength 
and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly 
speaking, the command of its own fortunes.” 

The contest between the two principles was terrific, but 
it was not a contest into which no ignoble elements entered. 
To each, worthy in itself, was added its alloy of baseness, 
idealism yoked with narrowness, vulgarity and injustice on 
either side. There were the scrupulous and the unscrupu- 


thority of the past was gone. The old forms were outgrown and 
new ones had not taken their place. The tone of books and con¬ 
versation was presumptuous and daring. The tendency of all 
classes was to skepticism. . . . The state of morals among the 
students was anything but good.” Memoir of W. E. Channing, 
by W. H. Channing, I, 70. 

Judge White, a classmate and friend of Channing, expressed the 
same opinion. “ Our colleges could not escape the contagion of 
these principles ” [the “ flood of infidel and licentious principles ” 
poured upon the country by the Revolution]; “ and I have no 
doubt that to these and the pernicious books embodying them, 
much of the disorderly conduct, and most of the infidel and irre¬ 
ligious spirit which prevailed at that period among the students at 
Cambridge, may be justly attributed. The patrons and governors 
of the college made efforts to counteract the effect of these fatal 
principles by exhortation and preaching and prayer, as well as by 
the publication and distribution of good books and pamphlets. . . . 
Watson’s Apology for the Bible, in answer to Paine’s Age of 
Reason, was published or furnished for the students at college by 
the corporation in 1796, and every one of them was presented with 
a copy of it.” Ibid. I, 61-62. See also Story, Life and Letters of 
Joseph Story, I, 66. On the influence of Rousseau on the young 
men of the time see Story I, 79. On the influence of the Revolu- 
< tion on social forms and usages see William Sullivan, Familiar 
Letters, 145. 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 


297 


lous, the statesman and the demagogue. But passion 
blinded too many; moderation was too rare, vehemence 
too much the order of the day. The writings of the time 
displayed more temper than truth. Now and then some 
penetrating criticism was made, as when John Quincy 
Adams said that vanity explained a good deal of the Revolu¬ 
tion. 1 2 But both parties were too prone to lose themselves 
in denunciation of each other. “ Anglomen ” and “ mon¬ 
archists,” shouted the Republicans. “ Disorganizes,” “ in¬ 
cendiaries,” “ anarchists,” were among the bitter epithets 
freely hurled back by the Federalists upon these men who 
shamed not to write coarse drinking songs, 3 to burn the 
leading members of the Government in effigy, and even to 
circulate printed handbills with coarse woodcuts represent¬ 
ing Washington placed upon the guillotine like the King of 
France. The hostility of the Federalists to everything that 
reminded ever so slightly of the Revolution stiffened grad¬ 
ually into grim, unreasonable and unreasoning hatred, well 
typified in Robert Treat Paine. In 1792 he had opened his 
Harvard Poem with an apostrophe to France—• 

“ Hail, sacred Liberty, divinely fair! ” 

Seven years later, in a speech in Boston, his views were 
these: “The French Republick has exhibited all the vices 
of civilization without one of the virtues of barbarism. . . . 
Political empiricism has never attained in any age or 
nation so universal an ascendency as at the present day in 
the ‘ Illuminated Republick.’ Unfettered by the fear of in¬ 
novation, and unshackled by the prejudice of ages, the 
modern Frenchman is educated in a system of moral and 
religious chimeras, which dazzle by their novelty those vola- 

1 “ The rock upon which La Fayette, Dumouriez, Custine and 
innumerable other French generals, as well as statesmen, have 
been wrecked, is Vanity. Each of them too hastily concluded him¬ 
self to be the pivot upon which the affairs of the world were to turn, 
and neither had the talent to disguise or conceal the opinion.” 
Memoirs, I, 69, Feb. 3, 1795. 

2 See Barlow’s poem entitled “ God Save the Guillotine.” Duy- 

ckinck, I, 393. 




298 


The French Revolution. 


tile intellects, which prescriptive wisdom could never im¬ 
press with veneration. Every Frenchman who has read a 
little is a pedant; and the whole race of these horn-book 
philosophers is content with the atheism of Mirabeau, the 
historick pages of Rollin and Plutarch, the absurd philan¬ 
thropy of Condorcet, and the visionary politics of Rousseau. 
These are the boundaries of their literary ambition, of their 
political science.” Turning to the influence of the Revolu¬ 
tion in America, he speaks of it as “ the melancholy record 
of our national degradation.” “ Who does not remember 
the letter to Mazzei or the arrival of Genet? Who has for¬ 
gotten that dubious era in our history when illuminated 
fraternities were scattered, like the pestiferous effluvia of the 
poison-tree of Java, from Altamaha to St. Croix? When 
anarchy and disorganization were the order of the day and 
French consuls and French assignats the order of the night? 
When our ‘ civick feasts ’ were introduced to celebrate 
French victories and our ‘ watermelon frolicks ’ to dissemi¬ 
nate French principles? When political infidelity was a 
paramount title to the suffrages of the people? When For¬ 
eign Influence, like the golden calf, seduced multitudes from 
the worship of true liberty.” 


Such, then, were some of the opinions of Americans of 
the great French Revolution—opinions to some extent 
evanescent, but with their deeply durable influence also, 
for they encouraged the Republicans greatly in their way 
of thinking and confirmed the Federalists forever in theirs. 

The great tempest swept by, but the waves did not 
at once subside. Long after the tumult of the hour was 
over, men were still talking about it. At the downfall of 
Napoleon some arose and shook off the whole horrid night¬ 
mare with an evident sense of relief, as was the case with 
Gouverneur Morris, who exclaimed: “ ’Tis done, the long 
agony is over. The Bourbons are restored. France re¬ 
poses in the arms of her legitimate prince.” With others, 
however, all the superb exaltation of the early Revolution 



Opinions of Americans at Home. 299 

seemed preserved long years after, as vivid and as ravishing 
as in those luxurious, hopeful days of ’89. This was the 
case with William Wirt, who broke into this strain upon 
the occasion of the Neapolitan revolution of 1820: “ By- 
the-bye, did you ever see such a miserable fist as the Nea¬ 
politans have made of it? Are these the descendants of 
Brutus and Cato? O shame and disgrace unspeakable and 
indelible, in such a cause! I had begun to feel the same 
sort of throbbing with which my heart beat nearly thirty 
years ago in the cause of France, and was already panting 
to go to Naples and take a hand with them. . . . When 
behold this miserable, mean, pitiful, sneaking capitulation 
arrives. O how different from the movement of France in 
the youth of her revolution! Even at this moment my 
blood runs cold, my breast swells, my temples throb, and 
I find myself catching my breath when I recall the ecstasy 
with which I used to join in that glorious apostrophe to 
Liberty in the Marseilles Hymn—‘ O Liberty, can man 
resign thee, once having felt thy gen’rous flame! ’ And 
then the glorious, magnificent triumphs of the arms of 
France, so every way worthy of her cause! O, how we 
used to hang over them, to devour them, to weep and to 
sing, and pray over these more than human exertions and 
victories! And how were the names of those heroes of 
Liberty ‘ in our flowing cups freshly remembered ’ and cele¬ 
brated almost to idolatry!” 1 

A passion, the mere reminiscence of which through the 
haze of thirty years could so thrill and fascinate a man, 
must have been of surpassing intensity. 

When we read that in 1830 the citizens of Charleston got 
up banquets once more in honor of a new French Revolu¬ 
tion, and that William Gilmore Simms composed a poem, 
“ The Tri-Color,” 2 intended to immortalize the same, we 
seem to feel that we are treading ground already sufficiently 
reconnoitred. 


1 Kennedy. Memoirs of the Life of William Wirt, II, 108-109. 

2 Trent. Life of Simms, p. 58. 




BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


WORKS. 

John Adams. Works, edited by C. F. Adams.—Letters 
to Mrs. Adams, edited by C. F. Adams. 

Fisher Ames. Works, edited by Seth Ames. 

Joel Barlow. Political Writings. New York, 1796. 

William Cobbett. Porcupine’s Works. 8 vols. Lon¬ 
don, 1801. 

Albert Gallatin. Writings, edited by Henry Adams. 

Elbridge Gerry. Some Letters of, edited by W. C. Ford. 

Alexander Hamilton. Works, edited by John C. Ham¬ 
ilton.—Works, edited by Henry Cabot Lodge. 

John Jay. Correspondence and Public Papers, edited by 
H. P. Johnston. 

Thomas Jefferson. Writings, edited by H. A. Wash¬ 
ington.—Writings, edited by P. L. Ford. 

James Madison. Letters and other Writings. 

Thomas Paine. Writings, edited by M. D. Conway. 

George Washington. Writings, edited by Jared Sparks. 
—Writings, edited by W. C. Ford. 

AUTOBIOGRAPHIES AND REMINISCENCES. 

John Quincy Adams. Memoirs, edited by C. F. Adams. 

Charles Biddle. Autobiography, edited by J. S. Biddle. 

Henry M. Brackenridge. Recollections of Persons and 
Places in the West. Philadelphia, 1834. 

Samuel Breck. Recollections, with Passages from his 
Note-Books. Edited by H. E. Scudder. 

J. T. Buckingham. Specimens of Newspaper Literature 
with Personal Memoirs. 

G. W. P. Custis. Recollections and Private Memoirs of 
Washington, by his adopted son. 



Bibliography . 


301 


Alexander Graydon. Memoirs of a Life chiefly passed 
in Pennsylvania. Harrisburgh, 1811. 

Ashbel Green. Life: begun by himself. Prepared for 
press by Joseph H. Jones. New York, 1849. 

William Maclay. Journal, edited by E. S. Maclay. 
Gouverneur Morris. Diary and Letters, edited by Anne 
Cary Morris. 

Joseph Priestley. Memoirs, written by himself. 2 vols. 
1806-1807. 

William Sullivan. The Public Men of the Revolution. 

1847. 

Ebenezer S. Thomas. Reminiscences of the last Sixty- 
five Years. 1840. 2 vols. 

John Trumbull. Autobiography, Reminiscences and 
Letters. 

Elkanah Watson. Memoirs, including Journals of Travel. 
Sidney Willard. Memories of Youth and Manhood. 

BIOGRAPHIES. 

J. Q. Adams and C. F. Adams. The Life of John Adams. 
John T. Morse. John Adams. 

John T. Morse. John Quincy Adams. 

Josiah Quincy. Memoir of the Life of John Quincy 
Adams. 

William H. Seward. Life and Public Services of John 
Quincy Adams. 

James K. Hosmer. Samuel Adams. 

William V. Wells. The Life and Public Services of 
Samuel Adams. 

John T. Kirkland. Biography of Fisher Ames. Pre¬ 
fixed to Ames’ Works. 

Charles Burr Todd. Life and Letters of Joel Barlow. 
Carl E. Oelsner. Notice sur la vie et les ecritsMe M. 
Joel Barlow. Paris, 1813. 

J. Francis Fisher. Memoir of Samuel Breck. 

Matthew L. Davis. Memoirs of Aaron Burr. 


302 


The French Revolution. 


James Parton. Life and Times of Aaron Burr. 

H. C. Lodge. Life and Letters of George Cabot. 
William H. Channing. Memoir of William Ellery Chan- 
ning. 

Edward Smith. William Cobbett. A Biography. 

G. M. Dallas. Life and Writings of Alexander James 
Dallas. 

J. T. Morse. Benjamin Franklin. 

James Parton. Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin. 
Henry Adams. Life of Albert Gallatin. 

James T. Austin. The Life of Elbridge Gerry. 

J. C. Hamilton. The Life of Alexander Hamilton. 

H. C. Lodge. Alexander Hamilton. 

W. G. Sumner. Alexander Hamilton. 

William Wirt Henry. Life, Correspondence, and Speeches 
of Patrick Henry. 

Moses Coit Tyler. Patrick Henry. 

Griffith J. McRee. Life and Correspondence of James 
Iredell. 

William Jay. The Life and Writings of John Jay. 

George Pellew. John Jay. 

Cornelis De Witt. Thomas Jefferson. 

J. T. Morse. Thomas Jefferson. 

Henry S. Randall. The Life of Thomas Jefferson. 
George Tucker. The Life of Thomas Jefferson. 

James Schouler. Thomas Jefferson. 

Charles R. King. Life and Correspondence of Rufus 
King. 

F. S. Drake. Life and Correspondence of Henry Knox. 
Bayard Tuckerman. Life of General Lafayette. 

Mme. de Lasteyrie. Life of Madame de Lafayette. 
Robert Henry Lee. Memoirs of the Life of Richard 
Henry Lee. 

C. H. Hunt. . Life of Edward Livingston. 

John Quincy Adams. Lives of James Madison and 
James Monroe. 

William C. Rives. History of the Life and Times of 
James Madison. 


Bibliography. 


303 


D. C. Gilman. James Monroe. 

Theodore Roosevelt. Gouverneur Morris. 

Jared Sparks. Life of Gouverneur Morris. 

Moncure D. Conway. The Life of Thomas Paine. 
Octavius Pickering. The Life of Timothy Pickering. 
Charles Colesworth Pinckney. Life of General Thomas 
Pinckney. 

J. T. Rutt. Life and Correspondence of Joseph Priestley. 
Moncure D. Conway. Omitted Chapters of History. 
William P. Trent. William Gilmore Simms. 

John H. Morison. Life of Jeremiah Smith. 

William Wetmore Story. Life and Letters of Joseph 
Story. 

Henry Cabot Lodge. A Memoir of Caleb Strong. 
Thomas C. Amory. Life of James Sullivan, with Selec¬ 
tions from his Writings. 

George Gibbs. Memoirs of the Administrations of 
Washington and Adams. 

Henry Cabot Lodge. George Washington. 

John Marshall. Life of George Washington. 

Horace E. Scudder. Life of Noah Webster. 

John P. Kennedy. Memoirs of the Life of William Wirt. 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES. 

Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer. Historical Characters. 
Spencer T. Hall. Biographical Sketches of Remarkable 
People. 

Samuel L. Knapp. Biographical Sketches of Eminent 
Lawyers, Statesmen, and Men of Letters. 

Henry Cabot Lodge. Historical and Political Essays. 
Samuel W. Pennypacker. Historical and Biographical 
Sketches. 

J. G. Thorold Rogers. Historical Gleanings. 

Henry Simpson. The Lives of Eminent Philadelphians. 
H. T. Tuckerman. Essays, Biographical and Critical. 
Moses Coit Tyler. Three Men of Letters. 












304 


The French Revolution. 


NEWSPAPERS. 

Boston Gazette. 

Columbian Centinel. 

Federal Orrery. 

Independent Chronicle. 

American Daily Advertiser. 

American Minerva. 

New York Herald. 

Gazette of the United States. 

General Advertiser and Aurora. 

National Gazette. 

Pennsylvania Gazette. 

Pennsylvania Packet. 

Hampshire County Gazette. 

Vermont Gazette. 

Vermont Journal. 

Connecticut Courant. 

Virginia Independent Chronicle. 

Joseph T. Buckingham. Specimens of Newspaper Lit¬ 
erature. 

Frederic Hudson. History of Journalism in the United 
States. 

Isaiah Thomas. The History of Printing in America. 

LOCAL HISTORIES. 

Josiah Quincy. A Municipal History of Boston. 

Justin Winsor. The Memorial History of Boston. 
William H. Sumner. History of East Boston. 

Charles Fraser. Reminiscences of Charleston. 
Montgomery. Reminiscences of Wilmington. 

Mrs. Lamb. History of the City of New York.. 

Scharf and Westcott. History of Philadelphia. 

John F. Watson. Annals of Philadelphia and Pennsyl¬ 
vania in the Olden Time. 


TRAVELS. 


John Davis. 
United States. 


Travels of Four Years and a Half in the 
London, 1803. 


Bibliography. 305 

W. Priest. Travels in the United States, 1793-1797. 
London, 1802. 

La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt. Travels through the 
United States of North America in the Years 1795, 1796 and 
1797. 4 vols., 2d edition. London, 1800. 

Henry Wansey. The Journal of an Excursion to the 
Lmited States in the Summer of 1794. Salisbury, 1798. 

Isaac Weld. Travels through the States of North Amer¬ 
ica, 1795-1797. London, 1800. 

CONTEMPORARY LITERATURE. 

“Aristocracy, an Epic Poem/’ Philadelphia, 1795. 

Josias Lyndon Arnold. Poems. Providence, 1792. 

Ann Eliza Bleecker. Posthumous Works, edited by Mar- 
garetta V. Faugeres. New York, 1793. 

Richard Bingham Davis. Poems. New York, 1807. 

“ The Decree of the Sun, or France Regenerated.” A 
poem in three cantos. The first offering of a youthful Muse. 
Boston. 

The “ Echo.” Printed at the Porcupine Press. By Pas- 
quin Petronius. 1807. 

James Elliot. Poetical and Miscellaneous Works. Green¬ 
field, 1798. Copy in Boston Athenaeum. 

Fayette in Prison, or Misfortunes of the Great, a modern 
tragedy by a gentleman of Massachusetts. Worcester, 1802. 

Michael Forrest. Travels through America. A Poem. 
Philadelphia, 1793. 

Col. Humphreys. Miscellaneous Works. New York, 
1790. 

Robert Treat Paine. Works in Verse and Prose. Bos¬ 
ton, 1812. 

Robert Treat Paine (or J. S. J. Gardiner). Remarks on 
the Jacobiniad, revised and corrected by the author, and 
embellished with caricatures. Boston, 1795. 

Charles Prentiss. A Collection of Fugitive Essays in 
Prose and Verse. Leominster, 1797. 


306 


The French Revolution . 


George Richards. The Declaration of Independence. A 
Poem, accompanied by Odes, Songs, etc., adapted to the 
day. Boston, 1793. 

Elihu Smith. American Poems, Selected and Original. 
Litchfield, 1793. 

Isaac Story. Liberty. A Poem. Newburyport. 1795 - 
John Trumbull. Poetical Works. Hartford, 1820. 

1 

LITERARY COLLECTIONS. 

Duyckinck. Cyclopaedia of American Literature. 
Stedman & Hutchinson. Library of American Lit¬ 
erature. 

Charles W. Everest. The Poets of Connecticut. 

Griswold. Curiosities of American Literature. 

Abby M. Hemenway. Poets and Poetry of Vermont. 
Samuel Kettel. Specimens of American Poetry. Bos¬ 
ton, 1839. 

Samuel L. Knapp. Lectures on American Literature. 
New York, 1829. 

MISCELLANEOUS. 

Annals of Congress. Gales and Seaton. 

John Quincy Adams. The Jubilee of the Constitution. 
William Cobbett. History of the American Jacobins in 
William Playfair’s History of Jacobinism. Philadelphia, 

J 79 6 - 

Richard Dinmore. An Exposition of the Principles of 
the English Jacobins. Norwich, 1797. 

William Dunlap. A History of the American Theatre. 
George O. Seilhamer. History of the American Theatre. 
William B. Wood. Personal Recollections of the Stage. 
Timothy Dwight. Sermons. Edinburgh, 1828. 

David Osgood. A Discourse. Thanksgiving, 1795. 
Boston, 1795.—Fast Day Sermon, May 9, 1798. (Some 
facts evincive of the atheistical, anarchical, and in other 
respects, immoral Principles of the French Republicans. 
Boston, 1798.) 


Bibliography, 


307 


James Sullivan (Citoyen de Novion). The Altar of Baal 
Thrown Down. Boston, 1795. 

William B. Sprague. Annals of the American Pulpit. 

Eulogies and Orations on the Life and Death of General 
George Washington/’ Boston, 1800. Contains several 
important orations. 

James Spear Loring. Hundred Boston Orators. 

Gouverneur Morris. An Oration delivered June 29, 
1814, at the request of a number of citizens of New York, 
in Celebration of the Recent Deliverance of Europe from 
the Yoke of Military Despotism. 

George Richards. Oration on Independence, July 4, 
1795, pronounced at Portsmouth. 

William Smith, M. C. Oration, delivered in Charleston, 
S. C., July 4, 1796. 

James Monroe. A View of the Conduct of the Execu¬ 
tive. Philadelphia, 1797. 

Alexander Hamilton. Scipio’s Reflections on Monroe’s 
View. Boston, 1798. 

Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. The “ Pa- 
cificus ” and “ Helvidius ” letters on the French Revolution 
and American politics, published entire in Gideon’s edition 
of the Federalist, 1818. 

James Sullivan. An Impartial Review of the Causes and 
Principles of the French Revolution. 

Noah Webster. The Revolution in France considered in 
respect to its Progress and Effects. New York, 1794. 

“ The Jacobin Looking-Glass,” by A Friend to Rational 
Liberty. Printed at Worcester, Mass., by Leonard Wor¬ 
cester, 1795. 

R. W. Griswold. Republican Court. 

Rosenthal. America and France. 

William Thornton. Cadmus, or a treatise on the ele¬ 
ments of written language. Philadelphia, 1793 - 

Tocqueville. The Old Regime and the Revolution. 

Van Buren. Inquiry into the Origin and Course of Polit¬ 
ical Parties in the United States. 

Warfield. The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. 






I NDEX. 


A 

Adams, C. F., 161, 162 note. 

Adams, John, 1; did not foresee 
the Revolution, 2; associated 
with Jefferson and Franklin, 
4; denounced by Democrats 
as favoring titles, 143-144, 145; 
letter to Dr. Price, 152-153; 
estrangement from Jefferson, 
153; publishes Discourses on 
Davila, 153-157, 159; on 

Paine’s Rights of Man, 160; 
on Constitution of ’89, 162- 
163; on Genet, 186; Dis¬ 
courses on Davila, 220, 223, 
253; on execution of Louis 
XVI, 254, 259; on irreligi¬ 
ousness of the Revolution, 
266; on doctrine of equality, 
274. 

Adams, John Quincy, descrip¬ 
tion of Monroe’s reception 
by Convention, 123; on 
French Revolution and Amer¬ 
ican politics, 140; Essays of 
Publicola, 161-162, 220, 253, 
297. 

Adams, Samuel, 168, 236 note, 
246-247, 271, 284. 

Adet, 285-287, 295. 

Alsop, 238, 239. 

Ames, Fisher, 204, 236-237, 255, 
259-260. 

Arnold, J. L., 221. 

August 10th, Morris on, in, 
112. 

B 

Bailly, 47- 

Barlow, Joel, on French condi¬ 
tions in 1788, 20; on States- 
General, 37; in France, 79 
note; on Constitution of ’89, 
163, 220, 222; goes to Europe, 


224; pamphleteer, 224-225; 
The Conspiracy of Kings, 
224; Advice to the Privileged 
Orders, 224, 226-227; Letter 
to the Convention, 227-234; 
made a citizen of France, 234; 
other writings, 234 note; 
later admiration of France, 
234 note; on 20th June, 254 
note. 

Barlow, Mrs., 227. 

Barrere, 126. 

Bastille, 46, 71. 

Baltimore, celebrations, 164; 
Democratic Society in, 195, 
206, 207. 

Biddle, Charles, 177, 208. 

Billaud-Varennes, 126. 

Bleecker, 221. 

Bonaparte, 135, 288. 

Boston, Civic Feast, 165-169; 
Democratic Society, 195; 
street names changed, 216. 

Bourbons, American interest 
in, 142. 

Brackenridge, H. H., 222, 246. 

Bradford, Ebenezer, 272. 

Bradford, William, Lament of 
Washington, 264. 

Breck, description of session of 
Constituent Assembly, 78-79 
note; on Worship of Reason 
in Philadelphia, 219 note. 

Brienne, Jefferson on, 28-30, 33. 

Brissot, 105, 107, 125. 

Burke, 59, 98, 99, 100, 143 note, 
152, 161, 220, 227, 273 note. 

c 

fa ira, popular as nom de 
plume, 217; sung in American 
theaters, 246. 

Cabot, George, 276. 




310 


Index . 


Celebrations in honor of the 
Revolution, 164-188, 284. 

Channing, William Ellery, 295- 
296 note. 

Charleston, celebration, 171; 
leveling principles in, 175; 
Democratic Society, 195; 
connection with Jacobin Club 
of Paris, 195-196; resolutions 
of, 197-199; celebration of 
Revolution of 1830, 299. 

Chateaubriand, 144 note. 

Chittenden, Gov., 246. 

Cincinnati, The, 184, 206, 221. 

Clay, Henry, 67. 

Clinton, Gov., 184. 

Clootz, 224. 

Cobbett, Wm., on Genet, 175; 
on Democratic Societies, 205; 
writings, 241-243. 

Coleridge, 220. 

Collot d’Herbois, 126. 

Committee of Public Safety, 
Morris on, 118; delays Mon¬ 
roe’s reception, 120; ruled by 
Robespierre, 124, 127, 284. 

Commons, see Third Estate. 

Condorcet, 153, 217. 

Congress, Revolution men¬ 
tioned in various debates, 
140, 143-152, 279-282; presen¬ 
tation of flag of France, 284- 

285. 

Constitution of 1789, discussed 
by Morris, 82-98; later con¬ 
demned in France, 103; men¬ 
tioned in Congress, 152; John 
Adams on, 155; attitude of 
Americans toward, 162-163; 
Barlow on defects in, 227 seq., 
282. 

Constitution of 1793, Monroe 

_on, 130, 282. 

Constitution of 1795, Monroe 
on, 131; comments in Amer¬ 
ica, 282-283. 

Convention, The, Morris on, 
112-119; receives Monroe, 
121-123. 

Corday, Charlotte, 221. 

Cristie, 206. 

D 

Dallas, 177, 208. 

Danton, 124, 125, 129, 238. 


Dauphin, The, death of, how 
received in America, 148. 

Democratic Societies, 188-209; 
their rise, 188-189; the Penn¬ 
sylvania Society, its organiza¬ 
tion and principles, 189-193; 
Declaration of Mass. Soc., 
193-194; reasons for these 
clubs, 194-195; clubs else¬ 
where, 195; their certificates 
of membership, 195 note; 
their resolutions, 196-203; 
their objects, 203; hostile 
criticism of, 204-205; de¬ 
nounced by Washington, 205; 
debate on, in Congress, 205- 
207; defend themselves, 207- 
208; their significance and 
character, 208-209; influence 
in introducing French prin¬ 
ciples, 217. 

Democracy, Jefferson on, 3; 
Morris on, 58-59, 86. 

Directory, established, 134; abil¬ 
ity of Directors, 134; farewell 
reception to Monroe, 136. 

Discourses on Davila, see John 
Adams. 

Duponceau, 177, 208. 

Dupont, 268-269. 

Dwight, 238, 239. 

E 

Echo, The, 238-241. 

Economic conditions in France 
at time of Revolution: Jef¬ 
ferson on rural France, 10- 
20; Barlow on, 20; Jefferson 
on winter 1788-1789, 38-39; 
on France in summer of 1789, 
49; Morris on, 67-68. 

England and France, contrasted 
in American thought, 146- 
148, 291-293. 

Equality, doctrine of, John 
Adams on, 153; criticised in 
America, 273-275. 

F 

Faction, dread of, in America, 
275-277. 

Federalists, 58, 120, 123 note, 
204-205, 208, 214-215, 217, 219 
note, 223, 248, 283, 291, 293- 
298. 



Index. 


311 


Fourth of July orations, com¬ 
ments on Revolution, 243- 
246. 

Foulon, Jefferson on murder of, 
53 . 

France and America, closely 
connected in 18th century, 
^ 141-142. 

Franklin, popularity in France, 
1; did not foresee the Revo¬ 
lution, 2; predecessor of Jef¬ 
ferson, 4-5; French interest 
in, 141, 143; eulogies in 

France at death of, 148-150. 

Freneau, 169, 213, 222-223. 

G 

Gallatin, 260-261. 

Gardiner, J. S. J., 236, 237. 

Genet, 105, 120; career in Amer¬ 
ica, 173-186, 286, 295. 

Giles, 205-206. 

Gilman, 123. 

Gironde, The, 104; policy por¬ 
trayed by Morris, 105-106, 
113; struggle with Jacobins, 
115-116, 118; Genet their mes¬ 
senger to America, 174. 

H 

Hale, E. E., 1-2, 10. 

Hamilton, 140, 152, 159, 163, 
223, 234, 260, 266, 274. 

Hancock, 246. 

Hartford Wits, 238-241, 275. 

Henry, Patrick, on Democratic 
Societies, 204; on execution 
of Louis XVI, 254; on irre- 
ligion of Revolution, 226. 

Higginson, Col., 293. 

Hodgkinson, 248. 

Hopkins, 238. 

I 

Irreligion of French Revolu¬ 
tion, 266-271. 


Jackson, 143. 

Jacobiniad, The, 236-237. 
Jacobins, no, 115, 116, 118. 

Jay, 1, 2, 135- M 3 , 159 , 163, 200, 
202, 255, 266, 281. 


Jefferson, 1; compared with 
Morris, 3-4; minister to 
France, 4; popularity in 
France, 5-6; general charac¬ 
ter of his criticisms, 6; opin¬ 
ions of monarchical govern¬ 
ments, 6-8; compares French 
and Americans, 8-10; descrip¬ 
tion of journey through 
France in 1787, 10-20; on con¬ 
dition of people in Italy, 15, 
1 7 note; his descriptions 
compared with Young’s, 18; 
on Assembly of Notables, 21- 
26; on good accomplished by, 
23-24; on political incapacity 
of Frenchmen, 25, 36; de¬ 
scription of events, 1787-1788, 
26-33; on Brienne, 29; on re¬ 
forms accomplished before 
Revolution, 30, 32-33; on 

States-General, 33-53; sever¬ 
ity of winter, 38; size of 
States-General, 39; proposes 
compromise measures, 42-44: 
attitude toward parties in 
France, 50; autobiography, 
51-52, 63; on Mirabeau, 67 
note; on abolition of orders, 
85; in Cabinet, 140, 141, 143; 
on discriminating tonnage 
duties, 147-148; on republica¬ 
tion of Rights of Man, 157- 
160; on Neutrality Proclama¬ 
tion, 180; on Genet, 184-185; 
opposition to titles, 213; sup¬ 
ports Freneau, 223; to Joel 
Barlow, 227; on execution of 
King, 258-259; on the vio¬ 
lence of the Revolution, 261- 
262. 

K 

Kentucky, 195, 295 note. 

Knox, 159, 223. 

L 

Lafayette, 6; letter from Jeffer¬ 
son, 19; in Notables, 22, 42, 
43; conference at Jefferson’s 
house, 50; Morris’s attitude 
toward, 61, no; presents key 
of Bastille to Washington, 
148, 150; poems addressed to, 




312 


Index . 


220-221, 251, 256; comments 
in America on his fate, 262- 
264. 

Lafayette, Jr., 144 note, 265 
note. 

Lathrop, 244. 

Lecointre de Versailles, 127. 

Leveling principles in Amer¬ 
ica, 209-219; opposition to 
titles, 209-216; to evidences of 
royalty, 216; streets rebap¬ 
tized, 216-217; French terms 
in vogue, 217; enthusiasm in 
Philadelphia for everything 
French, 217-219. 

Linn, Wm., 273 note. 

Literature, American, as evi¬ 
dence, 219-243; poems on 
Revolution, 220-221; Fre¬ 
neau’s contributions, 222-223; 
Barlow’s writings, 224-234; 
writings of Hartford Wits, 
235-241; of William Cobbett, 
242-243; additional bibliog¬ 
raphy, 243 note. 

Louis XVI, Jefferson on, 23, 
28, 34, 35, 47, 51; part on May 
5th, 72-74; Morris’s comments 
on, 83-84; Louis’ regard for 
Morris, 101; flight to Va- 
rennes, 101; impotence and 
rage of Gironde against, 105- 
106; reasons why condemned 
given by Morris, 116-117; de¬ 
scription of execution, 117, 
150; Louis popular in Amer¬ 
ica, 172, 184, 220; comments 
in America on his execution, 
253-262. 

Louis Philippe, in America, 144 
note. 

M 

McKean, 265. 

Mackintosh, 220. 

Maclay, Wm., 143-144, 146, 149. 

Madison, on French Revolution 
and immigration, 144 note; 
on Neutrality Proclamation 
and Genet, 179; on Genet, 
184, 222; on execution of 

Louis XVI, 259; debate in 
Congress on Madison’s Reso¬ 
lutions, 279-280. 

Marseillaise, sung in American 
theaters, 250. 


Maurey, Abbe, Breck on, 79. 

Merlin de Douai, speech at re¬ 
ception of Monroe, 121-122. 

Metric system, proposed to 
America by revolutionary 
France, 281-282. 

Mifflin, Gov., 184. 

Mint and Coinage Debate in 
Congress, 151-152. 

Mirabeau, Morris and Jefferson 
on, 66-67 note; on May 5th, 
1789, 72; Breck on, 79 note. 

Monarchy, Jefferson on, 6-8; 
Morris’s opinion of, 56-57; re¬ 
turn of monarchy in America 
feared, 145-146; “ Forerun¬ 

ners of Monarchy,” 209-210; 
evidences of attacked, 216; 
Barlow on, 228-229. 

Monroe, criticism of Morris, 
59; Monroe on French Revo¬ 
lution, 120-136; reception by 
Convention, 121-123; recalled, 
123; publishes the ‘‘View,” 
123; his observations on Rev¬ 
olution compared with Jeffer¬ 
son’s and Morris’s, 124; on 
Robespierre’s downfall, 124- 
125; on economic improve¬ 
ment of France, 126; on polit¬ 
ical situation in France and 
nature of pending controver¬ 
sies, 126-128; believes republic 
secure, 128; on violence of 
Revolution, 129; on famine 
in France, 130; on Constitu¬ 
tion of ’95, 131; criticises De¬ 
cree of Two-thirds, 131; on 
the reaction, 132; on transi¬ 
tion to Directory, 134; belief 
in permanence of the Consti¬ 
tution, 135; on victories of 
Bonaparte, 136; farewell to 
Directory, 136; criticises Ja¬ 
cobin Club, 208. 

Morris, Gouverneur, 1; compar¬ 
ed with Jefferson, 3-4; com¬ 
ments on French Revolution, 
54-119; early surroundings, 
54-55; opinions on govern¬ 
ment, 55-56; believes in mon¬ 
archy for France, 56; atti¬ 
tude toward democracy, 58; 
criticisms on Morris in U. 
S. Senate, 59, 60 notes; how 
regarded in France, 61; per- 



Index. 


313 


sonal feeling with reference to 
France and Revolution, 61-63; 
description of France in 1789, 
64-72; on Necker, 65-66; on 
Mirabeau, 66-67 note; on eco¬ 
nomic conditions, 67-68; on 
moral condition, 68-69; on 
current political thought, 69- 
70; on French army, 71; on 
character of Constituent As¬ 
sembly, 72-82; May 5th, 1789, 
72-73; on parties and methods 
in Assembly, 76-77; on en¬ 
vironment of Assembly, 80- 
81; France at end of 1790, 81; 
work of Constituent Assem¬ 
bly, 82-100; the French mon¬ 
archy, 83; the King, 83-84; 
necessity of bicameral legis¬ 
lature, 85; of preserving no¬ 
bility, 85-87; on confiscation 
of church property, 88; Mor¬ 
ris drafts state paper for 
King, 90-98; on good accom¬ 
plished by Constituent As¬ 
sembly, 98-99; work of Legis¬ 
lative Assembly, 100-112; 
Morris’s active part in poli¬ 
tics, 101; his advice to the 
privileged orders, 102-103; 
causes of the war, 106-108; 
prophesies despotism, no; 
on National Convention, 112- 
119; establishment of Repub¬ 
lic, 113-114; condemnation of 
Louis XVI, 116-117; Reign 
of Terror, 118-119; succeeded 
by Monroe, 120; later refer¬ 
ences, 120, 152, 163, 274, 298. 

Moultrie, Gov., 184. 

1ST 

National Gazette, on execution 
of Louis XVI, 256-257. 

Naturalization, debate on, in 
Congress, 280-281. 

Necker, 40, 41, 42, 65-66, 72, 78. 

Neutrality, proclamation of, 
178, 180, 198-200. 

New York, celebrates Revolu¬ 
tion, 164-165; receives Genet, 
183; Democratic Society, 195, 
200-201, 208, 213. 

Noailles, Viscount de, 144 note, 
184. 


Nobility, the French, 75, 85-88, 
107-108. 

Notables, Assembly of, 21-26, 
142. 

o 

Orleans, Duke of, 72. 

Osgood, David, 272. 

P 

Paine, Robert Treat, on early 
Revolution, 142-143 note; 
poems on, 235-236; edits Fed¬ 
eral Orrery, 236-237, 252, 275; 
later criticism, 297-298. 

Paine, Thomas, Conway’s Life 
59, 63; publication of 

Rights of Man in America, 
157-161, 209, 219 note, 220, 
224, 233. -— 

Parliaments, Jefferson on, 25, 
26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33; Ameri¬ 
can interest in, 142. 

Parton, 1. 

Pennsylvania, Constitutional 
Convention of, 145 note; 
Democratic Society of, 195, 
216. 

Phi Beta Kappa, denounced as 
aristocratic, 215. 

Philadelphia, celebrations in, 
169, 172-173; honors Genet, 
i75-!83; Democratic Society, 
195, 196. 

Phillips, John, 244. 

Plenary Court, Jefferson on, 30, 
3 L 32, 33 - 

Plymouth, celebration in, 170. 

Portland, 195. 

Prentiss, 236 note, 252. 

Price, Dr., 152, 220. 

Priest, 250. 

Prigmore, 248. 

Publicola, Essays of, 161-162, 
253 - 

Pulpit, American and the 
French Revolution, 271-272. 

Q 

Queen, The, 28, 51-52, 72 - 73 , 
101, 258. 

R 

Randall, Life of Jefferson, 59. 

Reign of Terror, Morris on, 
118-119. 



314 


Index . 


Religion, policy of Revolution¬ 
ists, 229-230, 266-271; see 

also Irreligion. 

Republic, French, 113-114, 164, 
289, 294. 

Republicans, American, 293- 
299 ; 

Reveillon, 52. 

Revolution, American, French 
interest in, 141; influence on 
French Revolution, 153. 

Revolution, French, not fore¬ 
seen by Franklin, Jay, Adams, 
2; advantages seen by Mor¬ 
ris, 98-99; not local, 139; 
hailed in America with joy, 
140-141; used 'for partisan 
purposes here, 143-145; crit¬ 
icised here from outset, 152- 
153; causes for interest here, 
288-299. 

Revolutionary Tribunal, 118, 
124, 125. 

Richards, 244. 

Rittenhouse, 177, 208. 

Robespierre, 120, 124, 126, 129, 
133, 219 note, 221, 238, 270. 

Rochefoucauld-Liancourt, 144 
note, 154; travels in America, 
250-252; on Lafayette’s popu¬ 
larity in America, 263-264, 
291. 

Rosenthal, 141. 

Rousseau, 141, 273; influence in 
America, 246 note. 

s 

St. Just, 124. 

Savannah, celebration in, 171. 

Sedgwick, 207. 

September massacres, 118-119, 
129. 

Sergeant, J. D., 177, 186, 208. 

Sherman, criticises Morris, 60. 

Short, 261. 

Sieyes, letter to Congress, 149. 

Simms, 299. 

Smith, Jeremiah, on Demo¬ 
cratic clubs, 205; on French 
principles, 276. 

Smith, William, 245. 

States-General, Jefferson on, 33- 
53; what they might attain, 
35-36; Barlow on, 37; Jeffer¬ 
son on size of, 39; opening 


session, May 5th, 40-41, 72- 
73; sessions followed with in¬ 
terest in America, 145. 

Sullivan, James, 208-209, 284. 

T 

Taine, 71, 106. 

Talleyrand, 144 note, 155. 

Tammany, celebration of, 165; 
an opera, 250. 

Tesse, 70. 

Theater, American, as evidence, 
248-250. 

Third Estate, 41, 42, 45-46. 

Thornton, Wm., on a new lan¬ 
guage, 219 note. 

Titles, debate on, in Congress, 
.143, 145; attacked in the 

press, 209-216; see also John 
Adams. 

Toasts, in honor of French 
Revolution, 182-183, 186-187. 

Tocqueville, 139, 289-290. 

Todd, 227. 

Tonnage, debate on, in Con¬ 
gress, 146-148. 

Tracy, on Democratic clubs, 
206. 

Travelers, comments of, 250- 
252. 

Trumbull, John, 79 note, 295 
note. 

Tyler, Royal, 222 note. 

Y 

Valmy, 109. 

Vendemiaire 13th, Monroe on, 
I 3 I - 

Vermont, Democratic clubs in, 
195 . 

w 

Wansey, 250. 

Washington, letter from Mor¬ 
ris, 61, 123, 141, 143 note; re¬ 
ceives key of Bastille, 148, 
150, 152, 157; on Democratic 
clubs, 205, 213, 234; on exe¬ 
cution of Louis XVI, 255; on 
Lafayette’s imprisonment, 264, 
284, 287. 

Watson, John, enthusiasm in 
Philadelphia for France, 217- 
219. 

Webster, Noah, 216, 220, 221, 



Index. 


315 


224; on irreligion of Revolu¬ 
tion, 267-269; on faction, 275; 
on attention of Revolution to 
trifles, 277-278. 

Whiskey Insurrection, 205. 

Wirt, Wm., 67, 299. 

Wolcotts, the, 144; on Demo¬ 
cratic clubs, 204; on execu¬ 
tion of Louis XVI, 254; on 
faction, 276-277, 282. 


Wordsworth, 220. 

Wythe County, Democratic So¬ 
ciety of, 201-203. 

Y 

Young, Arthur, journey 
through France, 10, 16; com¬ 
pared with Jefferson, 18; see 
also 76, 98. 





./ 

( 




























































• ' 











HJL 3 


% 













































































































































